«1. About Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT) 1.1 RGT is the leading charity in the UK committed to minimising gambling-related harm. As an independent ...»
Invitation to Tender
Evaluation of the RGT Harm Minimisation Programmes
Wednesday 16th December 2015
1. About Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT)
1.1 RGT is the leading charity in the UK committed to minimising gambling-related harm.
As an independent national charity funded by donations from the gambling industry,
RGT funds education, prevention and treatment services and commissions research
to broaden public understanding of gambling-related harm. RGT’s aim is to stop people getting into problems with their gambling, and ensure that those that do develop problems receive fast and effective treatment and support.
1.2 RGT develops its commissioning plans in collaboration with the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board (RGSB) and the Gambling Commission. These arrangements are underpinned by an 'assurance and governance framework' agreed between the three parties and rely on openness, transparency and partnership to deliver results.
2.1 This invitation to tender for evaluation relates to the funding for a programme of Gambling-Related Harm Minimisation first advertised by RGT in June 2015 via its website: www.responsiblegamblingtrust.org.uk/Harm-Minimisation-programme.
2.2 Following a competitive tender process, RGT has agreed to fund a number of advice and education projects that aim to reduce demonstrably the impact of gambling- related harm, particularly on vulnerable populations such as young people. The programme will provide funding over a period of two years and will form an important element of RGT’s ambitions for an effective and integrated response to gambling- related harm delivered by public and third sector service providers.
2.3 Each of the projects to be funded has the potential to be delivered nationally and offers strong local partnerships with public bodies, charitable organisations and other
services. This invitation to tender for evaluation relates to four of those projects:
Two projects will develop curriculum-based materials and interventions to be • used in secondary schools; Fast Forward will deliver a programme in Scotland, and Demos, in partnership with Mentor, the PSHE Association, and CNWL Foundation NHS Trust will deliver a programme in England and Wales.
Newport Citizens Advice will lead on the delivery of a programme to raise • awareness of gambling-related harm, equipping other professionals and the wider CAB network to effectively identify those presenting for debt advice for Responsible Gambling Trust – Invitation to Tender – Evaluation of Harm Minimisation Programmes 16 December 2015 1 gambling problems, and provide early intervention and signposting for those in need of additional support.
The Professional Player’s Federation will lead a programme of education for • sports men and women to raise awareness of gambling-related harm, with its member associations partially funding this work.
2.4 Projects will run to different timetables but funding for each starts in January 2016 and most projects will last for the two year duration.
2.5 Summary details on each of the projects outlined above are included within Appendix A. Full details including bidding documentation will be provided to the successful tenderer(s).
3 Purpose and Scope of the ‘Invitation to Tender’ (ITT)
3.1 This document relates to the ITT for “Evaluation of the RGT Harm Minimisation programmes”’ advertised by the RGT via its website www.responsiblegamblingtrust.org.uk dated Wednesday 16th December 2015.
3.2 The purpose and scope of this document is to:
Outline the tendering process and timetable • Provide applicants with sufficient information to enable them to consider the • appropriateness of this invitation and to respond Outline the information required in the responses • Set out the administrative arrangements for the receipt of proposals.
• 4 Work requirements
4.1 This tendering exercise relates to the appointment by RGT of one or more independent evaluators to review these projects. Tendering organisations may bid for evaluation of one, two three or all of the funded projects. Bids must make it clear which of the individual projects are the focus of bids, and bids will be required for each. RGT wishes to encourage bids to evaluate youth projects together.
4.2 RGT recognises that to date there is no agreed understanding of what gamblingrelated harm is, or how it can be measured and monitored. In commissioning the series of projects which are the focus for this evaluation, RGT expected each to explore the nature and characteristics of ‘harm’ and effective harm minimisation initiatives and using action-research and related models from the projects to identify how best to measure effectiveness and impact.
4.3 The aim of the evaluation(s) is to provide an independent assessment of the extent to which the projects individually have met these expectations.
4.4 More specifically the objectives of evaluation(s) will be to independently assess the
extent to which the funded activity has:
Provided for a better informed and improved understanding of the nature and • characteristics of gambling-related harm and the scope for its measurement.
Responsible Gambling Trust – Invitation to Tender – Evaluation of Harm Minimisation Programmes 16 December 2015 2 Established effective monitoring and evaluating of the effectiveness and impact of • the funded harm minimisation initiatives.
Developed evidenced approaches to reduce the impact of gambling-related • harm, particularly on vulnerable populations.
Assessed the likely scaleability of this experience, including any implications for • the measurement of impact for wider harm minimisation initiatives.
4.5 RGT encourages a formative approach to the evaluation so that individual projects can benefit from early evidence and assessment from the independent evaluators.
4.6 By the end of this evaluation we will have a clearer picture across the projects of the effectiveness and consequences of the actions taken. We will better understand aspects of gambling-related harm and how this can be addressed in specific contexts, and we will have a clearer idea of the scaleability of these actions and implications for other harm minimisation actions.
5 Methodological Approach
5.1 Each of the funded projects is distinctive in their focus, scope and coverage, and will be putting in place their own measures and measurement of effectiveness and impact and reporting these as part of their contractual obligation to RGT. Each is at different stages of maturity in their current proposals and plans for self-evaluating their impact, and in the scale of the activities proposed.
5.2 Successful tendering organisation(s) will support RGT in providing a critical assessment of these plans and proposals (which will be shared with the projects) as well as an independent assessment of their effectiveness and impacts. More specifically, it is expected the successful tenderer(s) will work with the individual
project(s) to provide for:
a) Critical review of the evaluation proposals early in the project(s) with particular relevance to the measurement of early and longer term outcomes and impacts.
b) Building on this early review by providing briefing and feedback to the project(s) with the aim of informing improvement of the quality of their evaluation measures and measurement proposals to better meet RGT’s needs and expectations of the overall programme.
c) Conduct a proportionate review of the delivery processes, engagement and experiences of any delivery partners and key stakeholders across the project. It is expected this will include a small number of interviews with key staff and partners/stakeholders.
d) Conduct a systematic review of the available management and monitoring information for the project set against its proposed activities, outputs and outcomes.
e) Provide an independent interim and end of project evaluation of the progress and achievements of the project(s) harnessing project-level evidence (as collected by project managers) supplemented as appropriate with additional evaluation evidence to verify the project-level evaluations.
Responsible Gambling Trust – Invitation to Tender – Evaluation of Harm Minimisation Programmes 16 December 2015 3
5.3 At all stages the role of the contracted evaluator(s) will be to support RGT’s understanding of the effectiveness and emerging impacts across the programme.
Liaison and all deliverables will be provided direct to RGT with the exception of the briefing or feedback proposals which will provided direct to the project manager(s).
5.4 RGT expects evaluation proposals to be proportionate and cost-effective. As far as possible we would expect the evaluators to be working with the monitoring and management information and evaluation evidence to be collected by the individual projects within their contractual commitments to RGT, with the independent evaluator collecting additional evaluation evidence only for the purposes of the review of effectiveness and/or for understanding the quality of impact of project activities.
Tendering organisations are asked to note the proposals for the inputs to the evaluation approach suggested above and outline how they would implement an evaluation strategy incorporating these suggestions. An outline work plan is also needed with proposals and to include key interim milestones.
Tendering organisations are welcome to suggest fully costed alternative or additional methods that meet the aims and objectives of the evaluation, and need for independent assessment, within the budget and timetable. Where alternative proposals are provided a clear rationale for their inclusion should be set out.
Details are required also of how participants to the evaluation and others contributing evidence will be engaged, any supplementary fieldwork methods, and how they would ensure quality of analysis and reporting. Tendering organisations should include information in their proposal about how they would approach any recruitment/sampling needs, target sample sizes for qualitative and quantitative research and modes of data collection as appropriate.
7. Tendering Process and Timetable
7.1 On receipt of the proposals, an independent review panel will undertake an assessment of proposals, with a view to selecting one or more organisations to perform the evaluation(s). The awarding criteria are outlined in Appendix B.
7.2 Applicants may be required to attend a meeting to clarify any aspect of proposals.
Responsible Gambling Trust – Invitation to Tender – Evaluation of Harm Minimisation Programmes 16 December 2015 4 You may submit, by no later than 17.00hrs GMT on Monday 11th January 2015 any 7.3 queries that you have relating to this ITT. Please submit such queries by email to HMeval@responsiblegamblingtrust.org.uk.
7.4 Any queries should clearly reference any appropriate paragraph in the documentation. As far as is reasonably possible, RGT will respond to all reasonable requests for clarification of any aspect of this ITT and supporting documents, if made before the above deadline.
Proposals must be submitted by 17.00hrs GMT on Monday 18th January 2016 to the 7.5 following e-mail address HMeval@responsiblegamblingtrust.org.uk. Receipt of tenders will be acknowledged by email by RGT. RGT reserves the right to extend any deadline. Any extension granted will apply to all applicants.
7.6 RGT reserves the right to reject any proposals:
(a) received after the deadline; and/or (b) which do not comply with the conditions and requirements set out in this ITT.
7.7 All documents and all correspondence relating to the tender must be written in English. You should consider only the information contained within this ITT and supporting documents, or otherwise formally communicated to you in writing when making your offer.
7.8 The tender documentation should be provided in the following format:
A cover page which details the tendering organisation, principal evaluator and • contact details, and also to which of the funded projects the evaluation bid relates.
Section 1: List of contents.
• Section 2: Background including your understanding of the evaluation objectives • and work requirements and how this will support the wider RGT programme.
Section 3: A statement of proposed methodology to conduct the evaluation with a • justification for proposed methods. This should include a timetable or workplan linked to key activities (e.g., GANTT chart).
Section 4: A summary of the evaluation team, its relevant experience and • expertise and the respective roles and contributions of team members to the evaluation. Summary CV’s can also be provided as an annex to the bid.
Section 5: A statement of your proposed approach to managing and quality • assuring the evaluation, to include a brief risk assessment with proposed remedies relating to identified risks, set out as per the pro forma in Appendix C.
Section 6: A summary of any proprietary intellectual property which will be used • to carry out the evaluation.
Section 7: Costs and charging to provide full disclosure of costs, including • number of days required for each task, day rates for different members of the research team, VAT (as relevant) and anticipated expenses, set out as per the pro forma in Appendix D. This section should also include a short statement of how the proposed approach to the evaluation/team will add value to RGT and its requirements.
Section 8: Contact details for two referees.
• Responsible Gambling Trust – Invitation to Tender – Evaluation of Harm Minimisation Programmes 16 December 2015 5 8 Intellectual Property
8.1 RGT is committed to delivering an independently commissioned research programme that focuses on gambling behaviour and the effectiveness of various treatment, prevention and education strategies in minimising gambling-related harm.