Richmond City Council
December 16, 2025

December 16, 2025
Library and Community Services
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager of Community
Services
Kate Eppler, Deputy Director of Community Services –
Library
Christopher Larsen, Library Services Manager
Subject: Contract Amendments with Imperial County Office of Education for Library Broadband Services
FINANCIAL IMPACT: These amendments will not result in any fiscal impact.

Funding for this contract is included within the approved Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Library/Administration budget
(Account String: 01241055 - 400401).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

November 19, 2024

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Imperial County Office of Education has requested
amendments to the existing contract for Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC)
broadband services, replacing Appendix 1 and extending
the date of service to June 30, 2030.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE the amendments to the contract with the Imperial County Office of Education for Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC)
broadband services for the Richmond Library with a term ending June 30, 2030 - Community Services Department
(Kate Eppler 510-620-5452/Christopher Larsen 510-620-
5524/LaShonda White 510-620-6828).

AGENDA
REPORT
1031

December 16, 2025
DISCUSSION:

The Richmond Public Library maintains a one gigabyte high-speed internet connection for use by Library patrons through participation in the California State Library Broadband Services Project (the Project), which connects libraries to the fiber-opticbased California Research and Education Network (CalREN). CalREN is operated and maintained by the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) and is a multi-tiered, advanced network-services fabric serving more than 20 million users across California, including the vast majority of K-12 students together with educators, researchers, and individuals at other vital public-serving institutions, like libraries. More information about CENIC can be found at https://cenic.org/about.

To administer the Project, the California State Library selects a Statewide Broadband Access Aggregator (the Aggregator). Participating libraries contract with the Aggregator for data circuits to connect to CalREN. The Aggregator further facilitates participation in the Project by coordinating discounts through the California Teleconnect Fund and applying federal E-Rate funds received by the Library.

The California State Library selected Imperial County Office of Education (ICOE) as the Aggregator for the Broadband Services Project in January 2024. The City Council approved a sole source contract with ICOE on November 19, 2024, which was executed on December 9, 2024. ICOE has requested two amendments to the contract. The first amendment deletes and replaces Appendix 1, titled “Provision, Installation, and Maintenance of Advanced Network (Data) Services: Reimbursement of Circuit Costs”.

The new Appendix 1 replaces references to the Library with references to the City of Richmond. The second amendment revises the expiration date of the contract from September 10, 2027, to June 30, 2030.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Original Contract
Attachment 2 – ICOE Amendment 1 – Revised Appendix 1
Attachment 3 – ICOE Amendment 2 – Amendment to Agreement Term 1032

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department:

Community Services Library
Project Manager:

Christopher Larsen
Project Manager E-mail:

[email protected]
Project Manager Phone No:
(510) 620-5524
Vendor No: Contract No:

Description of Services:

Connection to CENIC high-speed broadband fiber network.

The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond, a , and the following named Contractor:

Contractor Name: Imperial County Office of Education
Street Address: 1398 Sperber Road
City, State, Zip Code: El Centro, CA 92243
Contact Person: Luis Wong
Telephone: Email: [email protected]
Business License No: n/a
[ ] A California corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation, [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]
[ X ] other [specify:] California Public Agency

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is September 10, 2024, and terminates September 10, 2027, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.

3. Payment Limit. City total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $30,000.00 unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City.

4. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with Exhibit A: Service Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein. 16839 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1033

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

10. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice President should sign below)

By:

Title By:

I hereby certify that this Contract Title:
has been approved by City Council
or the City Manager. Date Signed:

By:

City Clerk
(* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign below)
Approved as to form:

By:

By: Title:

City Attorney
Date Signed:

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G
Fiscal Manager
12/09/2024
Luis Wong
Chief Executive Officer
12/09/2024
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 Mayor
1034

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager (set forth in Exhibit B), perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below:

AGREEMENT BETWEEN RICHMOND PUBLIC LIBRARY AND THE

IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

FOR THE PROVISION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF

ADVANCED NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES
This Agreement, hereinafter referred to as is entered into as of March 19, 2024, by and between the Imperial County Office of Education, hereinafter referred to as and the Richmond Public Library, City of Richmond, hereinafter referred to as ICOE and Library are sometimes referred to in this Agreement individually as and collectively as All written communications between the parties shall be addressed as follows unless and until amended in writing by the respective party.

Richmond Public Library Imperial County Office of Education Shasa Curl, City Manager Luis Wong, CEO
City of Richmond Network Initiatives
450 Civic Center Plaza 1398 Sperber Road
Richmond, CA 94804 El Centro, CA 92243
[email protected] [email protected]

WITNESS THAT
WHEREAS, ICOE is the Statewide Broadband Access Administrator for the California State Library Broadband Services Project and
WHEREAS, ICOE, on behalf of the California State Library, has contracted with the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California and its subsidiaries to provide high-speed networking to libraries in California; and WHEREAS, the Library desires to enter into an agreement with ICOE to obtain one or more data circuits to connect the Library to the CENIC high-speed broadband fiber network, CalREN, and, if specified in Appendix #1, attached, to connect the Library to other library sites as identified in said Appendix for the purpose of connecting to CalREN.

NOW, THEREFORE, Library and ICOE enter into this Agreement:

1. Purpose
It is the purpose of this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions applicable to the provision of communications and related network services to the Library under the Project.

Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1035

2. Services to be Provided
Parties understand that the primary communications infrastructure CENIC provides is the California Research and Education Network ("CalREN"). Services that CENIC will provide to Libraries will include the use of CalREN and contracting for and provision of data circuits supplied by network service providers.

ICOE, on behalf of Library, will contract with CENIC for such data circuits. Specific circuits and their costs are included in Appendix #1 attached, which may be amended from time to time by mutually signed Addenda ICOE assures Library that CENIC or ICOE will notify Library of installation requirements and necessary maintenance instructions. Neither CENIC nor ICOE shall be responsible for operating or maintaining software, equipment, or cabling that connects equipment or network services not provided by CENIC for the Services unless specifically agreed to in writing by CENIC.

Parties agree to provide notice to the other Party within 10 calendar days of a failure by CENIC or the network service provider to deliver Services or otherwise comply with the terms described in this Agreement, including Appendix #1 and subsequent Addenda. If noticed non-performance is not cured in a timely manner, Parties agree to meet within 10 days of said notice and discuss appropriate remedies, including but not limited to cancellation of related services or service credits as specified in the underlying agreements between CENIC and its network service provider and ICOE and CENIC.

Library is responsible for calculating and paying any early termination penalties that might apply due to the cancellation of existing connections so that it may receive Services under this Agreement.

Library is responsible for completing, signing, and submitting any required Letter of Agency, or related documentation, to confirm its participation in and eligibility for the E-rate Consortia and to authorize CENIC, as the E-rate Consortia lead, to act on its behalf as described under the Letter of Agency for the purpose of securing E-rate discounts.

Library is further responsible for completing, signing, and submitting any responsible Letter of Authorization, or related documentation, to the California Public Utilities Commission to authorize ICOE and CENIC to act on its behalf to submit an application and supporting documentation for the purpose of receiving discounts on eligible network services as part of the California Teleconnect Fund program.

If Library is currently receiving E-rate funding for its existing services, Library remains responsible for continuing to apply for that E-rate funding until all CENIC Services are turned up and existing E-rate supported services are canceled.

3. Term and Termination of this Agreement
(a) TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be in effect from March 19, 2024, until the termination of all Services, including the circuits ordered under this Agreement (as defined in Appendix #1: CENIC Circuit Quote and any subsequent Addenda under this Agreement), or unless otherwise terminated by a Party pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Specific terms for the circuits provided pursuant to this Agreement shall depend Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1036
on the specific date such circuit is to Library pursuant to Appendix #1 or subsequent Addenda or as noticed in writing by CENIC to Library. (b) TERMINATION. Termination of this Agreement prior to the end date of any given circuit, as described in Appendix #1 or subsequent Addenda, shall result in Library paying any applicable circuit telecommunications carrier termination charges or similar early termination charges that ICOE incurs under its agreement with CENIC resulting from early termination of the Service.
(c) Notwithstanding the above, upon a sixty (60) days written notice prior to the second and each following June 30 after a circuit is installed, Library may cancel a circuit without penalty if it verifies to ICOE and CENIC that funding to pay for that circuit is not available and Library agrees that for at least 12 months after said notice it will not order or otherwise obtain a replacement circuit or substantially similar services in place of the canceled circuit. (d) Library may terminate this Agreement with no penalty if non-recurring, one-time costs for all circuits included in Appendix #1 and any subsequent Addenda are materially increased by the telecommunications carrier from the amount shown in Appendix #1. (e) ICOE may terminate this Agreement or assign its rights and responsibilities under this Agreement to a third party upon no less than sixty (60) days written notice to Library in the event of termination or expiration of its duties and obligations under the Project and with written approval of the California State Library.

4. Payment
ICOE bills quarterly in arrears. Payment for services shall be due within thirty (30) days of receipt of an ICOE invoice reflecting the provision of the services for which the invoice is sent or as otherwise agreed to by the Library and ICOE. Except for non-recurring costs, if any, costs in Appendix #1 and any subsequent Addenda shall only begin upon installation of circuit(s). The Library will put forth reasonable efforts to make payments within thirty (30) days after receipt of the invoice. The Library understands and agrees that ICOE will only make payment to CENIC for services upon receipt of related payments from the Library. If the Library fails to make payments within thirty (30) days after receipt of the invoice, it agrees to pay any reasonable late payment fees incurred by ICOE under its agreement with CENIC.

Unless otherwise agreed to between the Parties, all circuit deployment fees, if any, as set forth in Appendix #1 and subsequent Addenda, are non-cancelable and non-refundable. Upon termination of this Agreement, or any Services provided under this Agreement, any outstanding circuit deployment fees, outstanding recurring charges, non-recurring fees, applicable circuit termination charges, and applicable early termination penalties shall become due and payable immediately upon termination.

5. Miscellaneous
(a) CONDITIONS OF USE. Library agrees to conform to the CENIC Appropriate Use Policy located at https://cenic.org/network/policies/acceptable-use-policy (revised September 13, 2004) and to any specific conditions of use imposed by network service providers or subcontractors providing communications services to CENIC as may be in force at the time such services are made available, including pursuant to an Addendum to this Agreement. If CENIC, subcontractors, or network service provider conditions of use are modified, Library will be notified and if Library believes it can no longer conform to their requirements, Library shall have one hundred eighty (180) days from the notice of the modification to terminate the affected Service(s) without penalty. Library must provide a 30-day written notice of its Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1037
termination under this provision to ICOE and CENIC. If Library does not elect to terminate the Service(s), Library must conform to the revised conditions of use. If Library fails to conform to the revised conditions of use, the Services may be subject to termination upon sixty (60) day notice to Library from ICOE or CENIC.
(b) CONFLICTING CLAUSES. If any clause in this Master Agreement is in conflict with a clause in an Addendum to this Agreement, the language in the Addendum shall take precedence only for the service defined in that Addendum. (c) FORCE MAJEURE. Neither Party shall be responsible for the performance of its obligations hereunder where prevented, delayed, or hindered by war, riots, embargoes, strikes involving third parties, acts of third-party communications service providers, including any local access provider, or of their vendors, or suppliers unrelated to the services offered under this Agreement, acts of unrelated third parties, accidents, cable cuts by third parties not related to services provided under this Agreement, natural disasters, act(s) of God or any other event beyond the reasonable control of the Parties.
(d) GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. (e) NON-LIBRARY USES: Library understands that this agreement covers only library use of CalREN and of circuits provided hereunder and Library agrees that no other uses will be made of the services provided herein.

6. Entire Agreement
This Agreement and any Addenda contemporaneously or subsequently executed by the parties constitute the entire Agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement and supersede all prior written or oral agreements with respect to such. This Agreement may not be modified orally, and no modification or amendment shall be binding unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties.

7. General Provisions

7.1 Nondiscrimination: During the performance of this Agreement, (a) ICOE and its subcontractors shall not deny the benefits to any person on the basis of religion, color, ethnic group identification, sex, age, physical or mental disability, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age (over 40) or sex. (b) ICOE shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.

7.2 Severability: It is expressly agreed and understood by the Parties hereto that if any provision of this Agreement is held to be or invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, it is deemed to that extent to be omitted. However, the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

7.3 Rights and Remedies: The rights and remedies of the Parties provided herein shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

7.4 Prior Agreements: The Library agrees that any prior agreements entered between any entity that previously served as the Broadband Administrator and the Library for the purpose of participating in the CENIC E-Rate Consortium or receiving services pursuant Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1038
to that program have been terminated.

8. Indemnification. Library agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless ICOE, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, losses, and liabilities accruing or resulting to ICOE and any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by Library in the performance of this Agreement, but only in proportion to and in the extent such liability, loss, expense, fees, or claims for injury or damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of Library, its officers, agents, or employees.

ICOE agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless Library, its trustees, officers, agents, and employees from any and all liabilities accruing or resulting to Library and any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by ICOE in the performance of this Agreement, but only in proportion to and in the extent such liability, loss, expense, fees, or claims for injury or damages are caused by or result from the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of ICOE, its officers, agents, or employees.

Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1039
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
Appendix#1
Provision, Installation, and
Maintenance Of Advanced Network
(Data) Services: Reimbursement of
Circuit Costs
This Appendix lists the circuits contracted for by CENIC on behalf of ICOE and the Library for connecting fiber optic backbone to the Library and for library connections that are not direct connections to fiber optic backbone, e.g., direct connections between libraries (defined as in the Agreement). Library understands that CENIC will bill ICOE, and ICOE will bill the Library for the costs of circuits charged by network service providers, including any taxes and surcharges and any one-time installation fees. Prior to approval of E-rate Consortium Library Application, not all applicable E-rate and CTF discounts will be reflected on invoices. After the E-rate Application for any given year is approved, the network service provider will coordinate with CENIC to provide appropriate credits, and such credits will be passed from CENIC to ICOE and from ICOE to the Library. Such credits are typically issued sometime during the fiscal year after the year in which the circuits are installed, and Services are first provided. In subsequent years, credits continue to be issued in the fiscal year after the year for which Services have been provided. Library further understands that the exact discounted cost of circuits will not be known until after the E-rate Consortium Library Application is approved. The actual start date of the Service, and therefore of circuit costs, will depend on coordination among CENIC, the Library, and the network service provider. Any one- time (Non-recurring or NRC) costs included below are typically invoiced by carriers prior to circuit installation and will be invoiced to the Library upon receipt of the invoice to CENIC from the network service provider.
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1040
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1041
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1042
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS

1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. All payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photo copying, meals and travel, etc). Invoices, shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request.
c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City
service/provider.

2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:

Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address: Attention:

City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager: Christopher Larsen
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804

3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, Christopher Larsen, before payments shall be authorized.

4. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.

5. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.

6. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized.

7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1043
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested respective address listed in this Section.

2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of: actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).

3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.

4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:

Christopher Larsen
City of Richmond Library
325 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: [email protected]

5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:

Luis Wong
Imperial County Office of Education
1398 Sperber Road
El Centro, CA 92243

Email: [email protected]

7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1044
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:

Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employeremployee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.

2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:

Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.

3. STANDARD OF CARE:

Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.

4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):

Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.

5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:
discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medical condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1045
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities. Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City.
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data. c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee. d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.

7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract Records b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment. c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1046
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.

8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:

Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license, required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder. The failure to obtain such permits and licenses shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder immediately upon transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C .
b. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Exhibit B; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1047
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses manner connected to Contractor Contract or failure
to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor.

Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract. b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).

12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee. b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer. The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent.
c. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or joint-venture or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture. 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1048
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add sub-contractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion.
e. Each subinsurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor. f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub- -Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.
13 SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract. Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours.

In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S.

Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the
aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor lved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1049
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
report.
c. Contractor
sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings. Contractor also agrees to make t, records to demonstrate Contractor
this Section.

14. INSURANCE:

Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.

15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50, 2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable. b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code. c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential sub-contractor .
d. Contractor
in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the Contractor agrees to abide by
the terms and conditions of said policies.
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1050
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education

16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:

The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.

17. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:

In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Condition as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.

18. FORCE MAJEURE:

Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.

19. CONFLICT OF LAW:

This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

20. CLAIMS:

Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1051
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education

21. INTERPRETATION:

This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.

22. WARRANTY:

If any product is be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.

23. SEVERABILITY:

In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

24. AUTHORITY:

City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City.

The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

25. WAIVER:

The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contra therefore, or any combination of to fulfill
this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.

26. COUNTERPARTS:
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1052
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):

The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G. 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1053
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable ):

NONE
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1054
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS
___ Check here if Risk Management has approved waiving insurance requirements for this contract.
a. Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with Sections 10.b. (1) through (5) Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor
the following statement:
canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the written notice to the City of Richmond. Attention: Ris
Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address described in Section 17.f. prior to the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract. Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
b. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS:

Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage and limits at least as broad as:
(1) :

Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability:

Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:

Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with per occurrence limits in the amounts of $2,000,000 and aggregate limits in the amounts of $4,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Additional 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1055
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
Insured Endorsement naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers is required. (3) Automotive:

Comprehensive automobile liability coverage (any auto) in the following minimum limits:

Bodily injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $2,000,000 each occurrence
Additional Insured Endorsement naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers is required. (4) Professional Liability:

Professional liability insurance which includes coverage appropriate for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Contractor
hereunder, including, but not limited to, technology professional liability errors and omissions if the services being provided are technology-based, in the following minimum limits:
$2,000,000 each occurrence
Technology professional liability errors and omissions shall include, or be endorsed to include: property damage liability coverage for damage to, alteration City in the care, custody, or control of Contractor. If not covered under Contractor Contractor
coverage in an amount sufficient to cover the full replacement value of damage to, of the City that will be in the care, custody, or control of Contractor. (5) Cyber Liability:

Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as are undertaken by Contractor in this Contract and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations with the following minimum limits:
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1056
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
$2,000,000 per occurrence or claim.

As to commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance, such insurance will provide that it constitutes primary insurance with respect to claims insured by such policy, and, except with respect to limits, that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Such insurance is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of the City.
c. SUBROGATION WAIVER:

Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation that any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. in favor of the
City for all work performed by Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors. d. FAILURE TO SECURE:

If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
e. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS:

The City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and compensation and professional liability insurance. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. Any additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.

Additional Insured coverage under Contractor -contributory and -insurance. Any available insurance
proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to the additional insured(s). f. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:

The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater. 7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1057
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and Imperial County
Office of Education
7252
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1058

EXHIBIT G

SANCTUARY CITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
The undersigned, (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or SCC ). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security ( IC ). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies; ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. Extreme Vetting means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Printed Name: Title: Signed: Date: Business Entity:

Luis Wong Chief Executive Officer
12/09/2024
Imperial County Office of Education
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1059
Docusign Envelope ID: C70AD620-1BD3-4738-BDC7-ECD15E299A00 1060
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AND

THE IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

FOR THE PROVISION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
ADVANCED NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES.

This Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between the City of Richmond and the Imperial County Office of Education (“Parties”) and is effective as of the date on which it is executed by both Parties.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Agreement on December 9, 2024; WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to revise Appendix 1, titled “Provision, Installation, and Maintenance of Advanced Network (Data) Services: Reimbursement of Circuit Costs”; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Replacement of Appendix 1
Appendix 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the revised Appendix 1, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The revised Appendix reflects the renewal of library circuit(s) and the associated details for provision, installation, maintenance, and cost reimbursement.

2. Effective Date of Amendment
The changes set forth in this Amendment, including the replacement of Appendix 1, shall become effective on July 1, 2025.

3. No Other Modifications
Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment through their duly authorized representatives as of the dates set forth below. [signatures on following page]
1061
For the City of Richmond
Signature
Name
Title
Date
For Imperial County Office of
Education (ICOE)
Signature
Name
Title
Date
1062
APPENDIX 1

PROVISION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
ADVANCED NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES:

Reimbursement of Circuit Costs
This Appendix lists the circuits contracted for by CENIC on behalf of ICOE and the City for connecting CENIC’s fiber optic backbone to the City and for library connections that are not direct connections to CENIC’s fiber optic backbone, e.g., direct connections between libraries (defined as “Services” in the Agreement). The City understands that CENIC will bill ICOE, and ICOE will bill the City for the costs of circuits charged by network service providers, including any taxes, surcharges, and any one-time installation fees. Prior to approval of CENIC’s E-rate Consortium Library Application, not all applicable E-rate and CTF discounts will be reflected on invoices.

After the E-rate Application for any given year is approved, the network service provider will coordinate with CENIC to provide appropriate credits. Such credits will be passed from CENIC to ICOE and from ICOE to the City. Such credits are typically issued sometime during the fiscal year after the year in which the circuits are installed, and Services are first provided. In subsequent years, credits continue to be issued in the fiscal year after the year for which Services have been provided. City further understands that the exact discounted cost of circuits will not be known until after the E-rate Consortium Library Application is approved. The actual start date of the service and circuit costs will depend on coordination among CENIC, the City, and the network service provider. Any one-time (Non-recurring or NRC) costs included below are typically invoiced by carriers prior to circuit installation and will be invoiced to the library upon receipt of the invoice from the network service provider to CENIC. 1063
1064
1065
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AND

THE IMPERIAL COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

FOR THE PROVISION, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
ADVANCED NETWORK (DATA) SERVICES.

This Amendment (“Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Richmond (City) and Imperial County Office of Education (ICOE) (collectively, the “Parties”), and is effective as of the date on which it is executed by both Parties.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Agreement dated December 9, 2025; WHEREAS, the Agreement currently has an expiration date of September 10, 2027:

WHEREAS, ICOE’s representative, CENIC, will enter into a five-year agreement with the service provider for the library circuit on behalf of the City; WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term and revise the expiration date;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Amendment to Agreement Term
Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to change the Agreement end date from September 10, 2027, to June 30, 2030. The revised expiration date of the Agreement shall now be June 30, 2030.

2. No Other Changes
Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment by their duly authorized representatives as of the dates set forth below. [signatures on following page]
1066
For the City of Richmond
Signature
Name
Title
Date
For Imperial County Office of
Education (ICOE)
Signature
Name
Title
Date
1067

December 16, 2025
Department
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager – Community
Services
Patrick Seals, Administrative Chief
Subject: Evaluation Report by WestEd on the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for receiving this report.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

January 16, 2024
April 15, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

As required under the City of Richmond Charter Article
15, Sections 2, 4(d), and (d)(ii)(4–5), the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth must conduct regular program
evaluations. The City, through a contract with WestEd, an independent third-party evaluator, completed evaluations of all grant-funded programs for Fiscal Years 2021–22,
2022–23, and 2023–24. WestEd has prepared an
evaluation report for City Council review to ensure that fund expenditure aligns with the provisions of the
Charter.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE the WestEd evaluation report, a third-party external evaluator, assessing the impact of the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth grant programs from Fiscal
Years 2021–2024 – Richmond Department of Children &
Youth (Patrick Seals/LaShonda White 510-307-8016).

AGENDA
REPORT
1068

December 16, 2025
DISCUSSION:

In 2018, Richmond voters approved Measures E and K, collectively known as the “Richmond Kids First Initiative,” which amended the City Charter (Article 15) to establish the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) and the Richmond Department of Children and Youth (RDCY). Measure E dedicated a portion of the City’s General Fund to programs supporting children, youth, and their families, reflecting the community’s commitment to promoting healthy development, safety, and long-term success for Richmond’s young residents.

The Department of Children and Youth (DCY) was subsequently created to administer the fund, oversee program investments, and implement the community’s Strategic Investment Plan (SIP), which guides funding priorities over multiple years. The SIP identifies critical areas where strategic investment can reduce inequities and expand opportunities, including early childhood development, education, youth leadership, housing stability, and community safety.

A key feature of the Charter’s RFCY language is the mandate for independent evaluation. According to the Charter and related City policy, the Oversight Board is charged with facilitating an annual evaluation through a third-party, external independent evaluator; this evaluation must identify relevant measures and ensure that programs funded by RFCY produce meaningful outcomes. The evaluation is intended to review not only individual program performance, but also system-wide effects, process fidelity, collaboration, equity in resource distribution, and alignment with the Fund’s goals as laid out in the Charter and Strategic Investment Plans.

The period covered by the evaluation, Fiscal Years (FY) 2021–2024, represents the Fund’s first full investment cycle. During this time, the City allocated $9.1 million in grant funding to 46 community-based organizations (CBOs) serving Richmond and North Richmond. These organizations delivered programs across a range of priority areas and age groups, with an emphasis on children and youth birth–24 and their caregivers.

The evaluation was conducted by WestEd which served as the City’s independent evaluator. Their mandate was to assess the extent to which RFCY-funded programs were implemented as intended, to measure participant outcomes, and to examine early indicators of system-level impact in Richmond’s youth-serving ecosystem. This evaluation represents a significant milestone for the Fund, providing the first comprehensive picture of how public investments have translated into programs and outcomes on the ground.

Additionally, the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth Oversight Board received the evaluation report at their meeting in July 2025
Analysis Overview
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) was established to ensure that all children, youth, and young adults in Richmond have the opportunity to grow, thrive, and 1069

December 16, 2025
succeed in supportive environments. The Fund is guided by six overarching goals that shape its investment strategy and program priorities, including (1) healthy, safe, and successful; (2) to strengthen families and communities; (3) to provide equitable, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed services; (4) to foster collaboration among agencies and organizations; (5) to ensure fair distribution of resources citywide; and (6) to fill service gaps while leveraging additional funding to maximize impact.

Evaluation plays a vital role in telling the story of the RFCY—its programs, the people served, and the impact of these investments on youth, families, and the broader Richmond community. It provides an opportunity to measure progress toward the Fund’s goals, identify challenges, and continuously improve the quality and reach of funded programs.

Evaluation Questions
The evaluation was guided by six key questions designed to assess both program implementation and outcomes:

1. How and to what extent is the Fund successfully building the capacity of grantees?

2. What are the successes and challenges of implementing RFCY-funded activities and services?

3. How and to what extent are grant funds being used to expand program reach and coverage?

4. How and to what extent is the RFCY reducing service gaps across Richmond?

5. How and to what extent is the RFCY facilitating high-quality programming?

6. How and to what extent are RFCY-funded programs promoting positive outcomes for participants?
Evaluators, WestEd employed a mixed-methods evaluation approach, combining quantitative data from grantee reports and participant surveys with qualitative insights gathered through interviews, focus groups, and administrative data reviews. This approach allowed for both a broad view of program reach and outcomes and a more nuanced understanding of participants’ experiences and organizational capacity.

Between FY 2021 and FY 2024, the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth invested a total of $9.12 million to support 56 programs delivered by 46 nonprofit and communitybased organizations. These programs operated across 120 sites in Richmond and neighboring communities, including schools, parks, libraries, community centers, and nonprofit offices.

Over this three-year period, RFCY-funded programs recorded more than 58,000 youth encounters1—representing more than 215,000 hours of direct programming. Programs served Richmond’s most vulnerable populations, focusing heavily on neighborhoods with the highest poverty rates and lowest scores on the Child Opportunity Index (COI).

1 “Encounters” represent the number of youth served per quarter and may include duplicate counts for participants engaged in multiple programs or across multiple quarters. With approximately 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, these figures reflect repeat participation rather than unique individuals served. 1070

December 16, 2025
Many of these programs were situated within walkable areas or along AC Transit and Richmond Moves routes, ensuring accessibility for participants without reliable transportation.

Funding Distribution and Program Areas
Programs funded through RFCY spanned six (6) priority service areas, established through the City’s 2020 Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Plan.

These areas and their corresponding funding allocations are presented below:

Priority Area Funding (FY21–24) % of Total Youth
Encounters
Out-of-School Time, Sports, and Enrichment $3,007,657 33% 19,876 Education and Employment Support $2,128,957 23% 9,456
Behavioral Health and Wellness $2,026,335 22% 19,475
Youth Violence Prevention $805,300 9% 6,150
Information, Guidance, and Case
Management $620,000 7% 1,077
Access to Basic Needs $536,008 6% 2,227
Total $9,124,257 100% 58,261
RFCY grantees also leveraged volunteer engagement and youth leadership in program delivery—37 percent of funded programs utilized volunteers, while 74 percent engaged youth over multiple quarters or years, demonstrating sustained, long-term involvement.

Participant Demographics and Equity Impact
The programs collectively reached a population reflective of Richmond’s diversity. Of the youth served, 46 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, 19 percent as Black or African American, 20 percent as White, and 6 percent as Asian, with smaller percentages identifying as mixed race or other ethnicities.

Participants ranged from infants to young adults, with the majority (62%) between ages 6–12, representing the City’s largest youth cohort. Slightly more than half (55%) identified as female, 43 percent as male, and 2 percent as nonbinary or unspecified.

Most participants resided in ZIP codes 94801, 94804, and 94806, which together encompass nearly 90 percent of the youth served.

Crucially, programs were strategically distributed to reach communities with the highest concentrations of low-income families—particularly those below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Many programs also offered multilingual services, including Spanish, Mandarin, and Arabic, and intentionally incorporated trauma-informed, genderresponsive, and culturally competent approaches. 1071

December 16, 2025
Key Achievements and Impact
The evaluation demonstrates substantial progress toward the RFCY’s long-term goals and highlights several major accomplishments:
 Broad and Inclusive Reach: With over 58,000 youth encounters across 120 sites, RFCY programs have become a City-wide resource for children and families.  Positive Youth Outcomes: Participants reported meaningful gains in confidence, connection, and leadership. Specifically:
o 93% said the program helped them learn to get along with others. o 87% said it helped them make new friends.
o 82% said they became stronger leaders.
o 83% said they better understood how to prepare for college. o 77% said the program taught them to handle problems positively.  Academic and Career Readiness:
o 67% said their program made learning fun.
o 56% said it motivated them to learn more in school.
o 93% said they now understand how to get the kind of job they want. o 91% learned about new careers or industries.
 Organizational Growth and Stability:
o Nine multi-organization collaborations and eight small/emerging programs received targeted funding to expand their capacity.
o 100% of grantees funded in FY 2021 or FY 2022 were renewed in the following fiscal year.
o RFCY grantees leveraged City funding to secure an additional $1.5 million in outside grants and private contributions.
 Community Partnerships: Over 44 public schools, including 27 elementary schools, partnered with RFCY-funded programs, resulting in more than 43,000 school-based youth encounters.

Program Quality and Participant Experience
Most RFCY-funded programs met or exceeded key performance benchmarks.

WestEd’s analysis of youth and parent surveys across 22 programs found strong indicators of program quality and participant satisfaction.  92% of grantees met the benchmark for overall program satisfaction.  77% met targets for youth sense of belonging.
 62% met benchmarks for caring adult connections and perceived program safety.  84% of grantees reported positive working relationships and responsiveness from RDCY staff.

Youth described programs as “safe,” “fun,” and “transformative.” Parents reported that 94 percent of their children enjoyed participating and would recommend the program to others, emphasizing the programs’ positive effects on their children’s confidence, behavior, and engagement in learning.
1072

December 16, 2025
Organizational Capacity and Sustainability
RFCY’s multiyear funding structure proved essential to helping local organizations plan, stabilize, and grow. Nearly half of all grantees operated with annual budgets under $1 million, and for several small organizations, RFCY grants represented more than half of their total operating revenue.

Over time, this investment helped organizations:
 Hire additional staff and expand professional development.  Establish new data systems and reporting mechanisms.
 Improve strategic planning and financial management.
 Forge lasting partnerships with schools, health agencies, and community centers.

Grantees also reported that City support enhanced their credibility with other funders— serving as a “stamp of approval” that unlocked new funding opportunities and strengthened community trust.

Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned
Despite measurable success, the first three years also brought important lessons and challenges. Many programs operated during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, navigating school closures, virtual learning transitions, and significant increases in family stress and mental health needs.

Nonetheless, grantees overwhelmingly expressed optimism, noting that RDCY’s responsiveness and partnership approach improved over time, and that new systems implemented in 2024 and 2025—such as the Submittable reporting platform—are already addressing earlier challenges.

Recommendations for Future Implementation
WestEd and RDCY identified several strategies to enhance the Fund’s impact moving forward. These include:

1. Maintaining Flexible Funding to allow grantees to adapt quickly to community needs.

2. Expanding Capacity-Building Support for small and emerging organizations in evaluation, data, and strategic planning.

3. Improving Communication and Efficiency through clearer guidance and faster reimbursement processing.

4. Reducing Access Barriers with transportation support, extended program hours, and bilingual outreach.

5. Strengthening School Partnerships by aligning calendars and points of contact to reduce disruptions.

6. Deepening Youth and Community Voice through participatory evaluation and youth co-evaluator programs.

7. Promoting Long-Term Sustainability by helping organizations diversify funding streams and plan for the future.
1073

December 16, 2025

CONCLUSIONS
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Evaluation Report (FY 2021–2024) affirms that Measure E has become a cornerstone of Richmond’s commitment to advancing equity, opportunity, and youth development. Over the past three years, more than $9.1 million has been invested to support 56 community-based programs, facilitating over 58,000 children, youth, and families encounters across the city. These investments have created a strong, responsive infrastructure that promotes learning, leadership, wellness, and healing throughout Richmond’s neighborhoods.

The evaluation paints a compelling picture of progress and promise. In its inaugural funding cycle, the Fund successfully launched and scaled a diverse portfolio of highquality programs that have produced measurable improvements in academic engagement, social-emotional well-being, safety, and family stability. Beyond individual outcomes, RFCY funding has strengthened the overall ecosystem of youth-serving organizations—building capacity, fostering collaboration, and ensuring that resources reach the communities most in need.

While challenges remain, the City’s investments are delivering meaningful results and lasting impact. As Richmond prepares to implement the FY 2025–2028 Strategic Investment Plan, the findings of this evaluation provide a clear roadmap for continued progress—guided by data, driven by equity, and rooted in community voice. The Department of Children and Youth concurs with WestEd’s recommendations to enhance data systems, expand technical assistance, and deepen capacity-building support, ensuring that future investments build upon today’s successes while addressing areas of growth.

Next Steps
City staff will return to the City Council in early Quarter 1 of the 2026 calendar year with a presentation on the potential renewal of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY), Article 15 of the City Charter (formerly Measures E and K). The presentation will outline available renewal pathways, seek City Council direction, and summarize anticipated timelines and fiscal considerations to support informed decision-making.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

City of Richmond Charter Article 15, Sections 2, 4(d), and (d)(ii)(4–5) - The Richmond Fund for Children & Youth shall use independent evaluations to ensure funded programs meet outcomes, with reports shared publicly and with City leadership.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Fiscal Year 2021-24 RFCY Report Final
Attachment 2 – DRAFT City Council Presentation – WestEd Evaluation RFCY Attachment 3 – DRAFT Evaluation Report Question and Response 1074
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
Evaluation
Report
FY 21–24
1075
This report was prepared under Contract 6896, from the City of Richmond, Department of Children and Youth. The content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the City of Richmond or the Department of Children and Youth. © 2025 WestEd. All rights reserved.

WestEd is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that aims to improve the lives of children and adults at all ages of learning and development. We do this by addressing challenges in education and human development, increasing opportunity, and helping build communities where all can thrive. WestEd staff conduct and apply research, provide technical assistance, and support professional learning. We work with early learning educators, classroom teachers, local and state leaders, and policymakers at all levels of government. i
1076
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Key Achievements 1
Implementation Challenges 2
Recommendations 2
Future Impact 2
Introduction 3
RFCY Theory of Change 4
Evaluation Approach 5
Data Sources 5
RFCY Implementation Summary 6
Program Reach and Coverage 7
RFCY Participant Demographics 7
Serving Communities With the Highest Needs 9
Serving Children and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations 10
Reducing Service Gaps 13
Types of Supported Programming 13
Addressing Basic Needs 13
Programs by Priority Area 16
• Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness 17
• Education Support and Employment/Training Support 19
• Out-of-School Time, After School, Sports and Enrichment 21 • Youth Violence Prevention 23
• Access to Basic Needs 24
• Information, Guidance, and Case Management 25
Assessing the Quality of Funded Programs 26
• RFCY Grantee Performance Measures 27
• Participant Satisfaction 28
• Program Environment 28
• Sense of Belonging 29
Additional Participant Experiences 30
• Building Connections 31
• Leadership and Advocacy 31
• College Preparation 31
• Academic Success 32
• Life Skills 32
• Career and Trade Job Readiness 33
• Physical, Mental, and Emotional Health 34
ii
1077
Grantee Approaches to Assessing and
Improving Program Quality 35
z Grantees actively measure impact and participant learning 35 z Community engagement is central to grantees’ work 35
RFCY Grants Support Programs’
Organizational Capacity and Sustainability 37
Capacity Building for Grantees 37
z RFCY catalyzed collaboration in Richmond 38
z RFCY helped emerging programs grow their
organizational infrastructures 39
Grantees’ Fiscal Health and Sustainability 40
z Multiyear RFCY funding supported grantees’ planning and growth 40 z Grantees pursued additional funding sources to support sustainability 40 Implementation Challenges 42
COVID-19 42
Barriers to Access and Attendance 42
Scheduling and Communication Issues With Partners 43
Staffing Shortages and Turnover 43
Limited Grantee Organizational Capacity 44
Limited RDCY Organizational Capacity 44
Recommendations to Improve the Richmond
Fund for Children and Youth 46
Prioritize Flexible Funding 46
Support Capacity Building for Program Quality 46
Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning 46
Enhance Communication and Responsiveness 47
Increase Access Supports and Promote Attendance 47
Strengthen School and Community Partnerships 47
Deepen Youth and Community Voice 47
Conclusion 48
Appendix A. Evaluation Planning Process 49
Document Review 49
Listening Sessions With RFCY Grantees 50
Development of Performance Measures 50
Pilot Evaluation 50
Appendix B. RFCY Evaluation
Partner Engagement 51
Regular Meetings With RDCY 51
RFCY Oversight Board Engagement 51
Youth Co-Evaluators 51
iii
1078
Appendix C. Detailed Description
of Data Collection Methods 52
Participant Surveys 52
Grantee Focus Groups 53
Quarterly Reports 53
Grantee Survey 53
Appendix D. Funded Programs Priority Area 54
Appendix E. List of Program Sites 59
iv
1079
Executive
Summary
From FY 2021 to FY 2024, the
Richmond Fund for Children
and Youth (RFCY) invested
over $9.1 million in programs
supporting Richmond’s
children, youth, and families. Administered by the Richmond Department of Children and Youth (RDCY), RFCY funded 56
programs implemented by 46 grantee organiza-
tions, spanning services in mental and behavioral
health, education and employment, out-ofschool time, violence prevention, access to basic needs, and case management. This evaluation—
conducted by WestEd—provides a comprehensive
assessment of the reach, quality, and outcomes
of RFCY-funded programs, as well as recommen-
dations for future improvement.
1 Each grantee reported the number of youth served at their organization per quarter, described in this report using the term “encounter.” Participants are duplicated in these counts if they participated in more than one funded program or attended their programs for more than a quarter. Given that there are about 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, the data suggest that RFCY program participants attended more than one program and/or a single program for more than one quarter.

Key Achievements • Widespread Reach: There were over 58,000 children and youth encounters
1 across
120 sites throughout Richmond, with high
representation from areas of greatest need.
• Equity-Focused Implementation: Programs
reached diverse groups, including Black,
Latinx, multilingual, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged youth. Many programs
embedded trauma-informed and culturally
responsive practices.
• Accessible Services: Many sites were
accessible by public transit, walkable for
youth, or supported by transportation
partnerships. Some grantees launched their
own bus routes to eliminate access barriers.
• Positive Youth Experience: Youth reported
high levels of satisfaction, belonging, and
connection with caring adults. Outcomes
included positive youth experiences related
to leadership, self-confidence, college and
career readiness, and mental health support.
• Support for Organizations: RFCY funding
helped grantees stabilize and expand
services, strengthen partnerships, and plan
for long-term sustainability. Several small
or emerging organizations successfully
expanded their reach and capacity.
1 1080
Implementation
Challenges
• Barriers to Outreach and Participation:

Some grantees struggled to reach youth
most in need, and some struggled with
consistent attendance due to the many
demands youth face.
• Administrative and Staffing Burdens:

Organizations struggled with staff turnover,
delayed payments, and administrative
requirements. Early RDCY staffing limitations
also impacted grantee support.
• Sustainability Concerns: Despite successes,
some grantees expressed uncertainty about
long-term funding and scalability without
additional support or infrastructure.

Recommendations
• Prioritize Flexible Funding: Maintain flexible
funding to support responsive, communityinformed programs that can pivot to meet emerging needs.
• Support Capacity Building for Program
Quality: Expand technical assistance to
strengthen infrastructure, data use, and
program quality.
• Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning:

Help grantees build fiscal resilience through
strategic planning, revenue diversification,
and blending of funding sources.
• Enhance Communication and
Responsiveness: Improve clarity in
communication between the RDCY and
RFCY grantees and streamline grantmaking
processes.
• Increase Access Supports and Promote
Attendance: Reduce participation barriers
by promoting transportation solutions,
expanded hours, and flexible formats
tailored to high-need populations.
• Strengthen School and Community
Partnerships: Help grantees to streamline
coordination with schools via aligned
calendars, clear points of contact, and
processes to reduce disruptions.
• Deepen Youth and Community Voice:

Expand participatory approaches in
evaluation and program planning to ensure
programming remains inclusive, relevant,
and effective.

Future Impact
The RFCY has become a vital, equity-driven investment in Richmond’s children and youth-serving system, enabling organizations to deliver impactful, culturally relevant services. Continued improvements in systems coordination, grantee
support, and strategic communication—alongside
sustained flexible funding—will be key to maximizing RFCY’s long-term impact. 2 1081
Introduction
On June 5, 2018, Richmond
voters approved Measures E
and K, known as the Richmond
Kids First Initiative.

T he Richmond Kids First Initiative approved a City of Richmond charter amendment (Article 15) to create the Richmond Department
of Children and Youth (RDCY) and require that a
portion of the General Fund be set aside to fund
youth programs and services. Starting in fiscal
year (FY) 2021–22, RDCY provided grant funding through the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) to various organizations serving Richmond and North Richmond youth under the age of 24. WestEd was contracted by RDCY
to evaluate the RFCY from FY 2021 through
FY 2028. This report summarizes evaluation findings from FY 2021–24, reflecting the first three grant funding cycles.

The six goals of RFCY are the following:
1 To ensure that Richmond’s children, youth,
and young adults are physically, emotionally,
mentally, and socially healthy; educated and
successful in school; and live in stable, safe,
and supported families and communities.
2 To increase safety for children, youth, and
young adults, their parents/guardians,
families, and the communities in which
they live by preventing problems and
enhancing the strengths of children,
youth, young adults, and their families.
3 To ensure young people are provided
with gender responsive, traumainformed, population-specific, and culturally competent services.
4 To strengthen collaboration between
public agencies and community-based
organizations around shared outcomes among
all service providers for children, youth,
young adults, and their parents/guardians.
5 To ensure an equitable distribution of
resources to all of Richmond’s young people in
recognition of the importance of investment in
their futures from birth through young adult.
6 To fill gaps in services and to leverage
other resources whenever feasible.

What is evaluation?
Evaluation provides an opportunity for an organization to share its story about the program; the people served; and the impact of the program on those who are served, their families, and the broader community.
3 1082
RFCY Theory of Change
Figure 1. RFCY Theory of Change
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth
Service gap reduction
High-quality, equitable
service delivery
Strengthened
collaboration between
service providers
Increased availability
of services
• Increased safety
supports for
children and youth
Results In Community
Impact
Fund
Impact
Richmond's children,
youth, and young
adults are physically,
emotionally, mentally,
and socially healthy;
educated and
successful in school;
and live in stable, safe,
and supported families
and communities.

Theory of Change
The RFCY theory of change (Figure 1) visualizes
how the RFCY is expected to positively impact
Richmond residents long term. By funding
Richmond-serving organizations, the RFCY will
reduce service gaps, deliver more high-quality
and equitable services, and promote stronger
collaboration between service providers across
the city. Over time, these short-term outcomes
will lead to increased availability of services
and safety supports for Richmond children
and youth. Through these positive short- and
intermediate-term outcomes, the RFCY will
ensure that Richmond children, youth, and young
adults are healthy; educated and successful in
school; and live in stable, safe, and supportive
communities.
4 1083
Evaluation Questions
1 How and to what extent is the Fund
successfully building the capacity
of grantees?
2 What are successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities
and services?
3 How and to what extent are grant
funds used to expand program reach
and/or coverage?
4 How and to what extent is the RFCY
reducing service gaps in the city
of Richmond?
5 How and to what extent is the RFCY
facilitating high-quality programming?
6 How and to what extent are RFCYfunded programs promoting positive outcomes for program participants?
Evaluation Approach
The RFCY evaluation is designed to measure the
extent to which the RFCY is meeting its intended
goals. The evaluation plan was developed over 10
months in collaboration with the RDCY, the RFCY
Oversight Board, RFCY grantees, and Richmond
youth (see Appendix A for a description of evaluation plan development). During the evaluation planning phase, WestEd hosted listening sessions with grantees and co-developed evaluation instruments with the RFCY Oversight Board and
youth co-evaluators. WestEd also partnered with
a small group of grantees to pilot the participant
survey data collection process. During the data
collection and analysis stage, WestEd collaborated with the RDCY, RFCY Oversight Board, and co-evaluators to co-interpret evaluation data (see
Appendix B).

Data Sources
Detailed descriptions of data sources are found in Appendix C. *Youth surveys were administered to youth ages 11 and older, whereas parent surveys were administered only to parents of children ages 10 and younger. When funded, grantees were not explicitly required to participate in evaluation activities, and some programs did not have activities corresponding with data collection windows. Survey findings are not representative of all grantees, as only 40 percent of grantees administered surveys. 565
Participant
Surveys*
315
Grantee
Reports
38 Grantee
Surveys
6 Grantee
Focus
Groups
533 Youth surveys
32 Parent/guardian surveys
154 Quarterly narratives
78 Service provision reports
83 Demographic reports
5 1084
RFCY
Implementation
Summary
RDCY first awarded
grants on July 1, 2021.

Each subsequent year, RDCY renewed grant agreements with existing grantees and awarded new grants to additional programs.

Annual grantee awards ranged from $15,000
to $150,000.

In total, over 9.1 million dollars went to organizations serving Richmond children, youth, and families.

Evaluation data show that the RFCY is increasing
access to services and supports for Richmond
children and youth by expanding the availability
and accessibility of services across the city. Funds
were used to cover a variety of costs, including
staff salaries, direct program costs, infrastructure and administrative costs, and staff training and professional development.
organizations
funded
46 grants
56 program
sites
121
dispersed
$9,124,257
of funded
programs utilize
volunteers
37%
programs
engage youth
long term
74%
youth
encounters
58,261
hours of
services
216,686
$1.6M
+19 new awards
+19 new awards
FY 2022–23
FY 2021–22
FY 2023–24
$3M
$4.5M
+18 new awards Nearly tripled since
FY 2021–22
RFCY Awards by Year
“The funding helps
a lot because as [a]
non-profit it’s pretty much impossible
to continue to pay
for everything yourself, especially as
your goals continue
to grow and as the
amount of people
you’re helping continues to grow.”
—Program Staff
6 1085
Program Reach
and Coverage
The RFCY has funded 56
programs that operate
across 118 different sites.

Program sites span the city of Richmond (80 sites) and surrounding areas, including San Pablo (10 sites) and El Sobrante (4 sites). Sites
in Richmond include 12 publicly owned facilities
(libraries, city community centers, recreation
complex), 13 outdoor spaces, 32 schools, and
24 community-based sites such as youth centers, social service providers, and offices. Sites outside of Richmond include 5 parks, 8 destinations that were visited as one-time field trips, 3 schools outside of West Contra Costa Unified
School District (WCCUSD), 3 postsecondary
schools, and 11 sites that are offices or centers for
social services, healthcare, or outreach. Figure 2
shows the location of RFCY-funded program sites
across census block groups, which captures the
geographic area the census uses to summarize
information about the households in that area.

As shown by the map (Figure 2), sites are most
concentrated in central Richmond, and overall,
there are more sites in areas with a higher population of children and youth. 2 American Community Survey 2023 5-Year Estimates. United States Census Bureau.

RFCY Participant
Demographics
Throughout FY 2021–24, RFCY grantees had over
58,000 encounters with children and youth. Each
funded program served between 21 and 2,700
children and youth per quarter. The largest programs were those that served entire schools or grades within schools. Many grantees said that
RFCY enabled them to expand their reach by
serving more students and expanding programming. The funding from RFCY increases programs’ capacities to operate at more locations, for longer
durations, and have more spaces in their program.

Grantees served a diverse population of children and youth of various ages, ethnicities, and neighborhoods. Grantees served a large portion
of Richmond’s population, given that young
people under 24 make up about 30 percent of
Richmond’s total population.2
The majority of participants resided in the following zip codes: 94801 (34%), 94804 (34%), and 94806 (19%) (Figure 3).
“The funds have really helped
open up and expand our program.

We can work not just with middle school students but also high school students and year round.”
—Program Manager
0 12,365
Population Under Age 18
Figure 2. Map of
RFCY Sites
7 1086
Figure 3. Home Zip Code of RFCY Participants
94801
94806
94804
94803
34% 15,149–15,212
Participants
34% 8,665–15,148
Participants
19%2,964–8,664
Participants
94805
7%2,800–2,963
Participants
6%2,799
Participants
Figure 4. RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Figure 5. RFCY Participant Ages
The majority of participants (62%) fell into the
6–12 age range. A small number of programs
served children 5 years old and under (Figure 5).

Those same programs also served older children
and/or the entire family. Programs that served
young adults (ages 18–24) included internship
and employment programs and whole-family services, such as case management and workshops for parents. These services were offered through
private businesses, the Richmond Department of
Employment and Training, and other well-funded
nonprofit and social service organizations.
“We have bilingual (Spanish-English, some Arabic) Youth Peer Support staff to support in authentic youth engagement and program leadership, especially to
help address the language barriers present in the community.” —Grantee report
Figure 6. RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
Note. “Other” includes Native American, Alaska
Native, Pacific Islander, and Unknown
Grantees served a racially and ethnically diverse
population of children and youth. The demographics of participants in RFCY-funded programs mirror that of Richmond’s overall population
(Figure 6). Many programs were intentional in providing services for Spanish-speaking children, youth, and families. Several programs offered
services in more than two languages.

Female
55%
Male
43%
Unknown 1%
Non-Binary 1%
RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Birth–5
5%
Ages 6–12
62%
Ages 13–17
26%
Ages 18–24
7%
RFCY Participant Ages
Hispanic/Latino 46%
White 20%
Black 19%
Asian 6%
Mixed Race 4%
Other 5%
RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
8 1087
Program Highlight
The East Bay Center for Performing Arts
Young Artist Diploma Program (YADP)
was funded in FY 2021–24 to provide
cross-cultural performing arts programs. The
YDAP provides youth ages 7-12 with wraparound services to help youth experience art as a therapeutic outlet. For example, the
grantee partnered with the Contra Costa
Family Justice Center to help young artists
understand and address complex issues
related to violence in their communities.

Through these partnerships, YADP promotes
resilience and positive youth development. As
one staff member describes, “This important capacity-building work to document our highly effective curriculum will provide program continuity for years to come and ensure that all faculty and staff have the tools and
focus they need to ensure that all young
people are able to meet their full potential
in all aspects of their lives.”
3 COI visualized on the map is a calculated measure of neighborhood resources and conditions across domains of education, health, environment, social, and economic resources. For more information about the COI, visit www.diversitydatakids.org.

Serving Communities
With the Highest Needs
The majority of program sites are in areas with
a higher proportion of families whose income is
less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level
and are rated as areas of lower opportunity on the
Child Opportunity Index (COI; see Figure 7) compared to other Richmond city council districts. See the 2024 Richmond Department of Children and
Youth Community Needs Assessment Report3 for
more information about Richmond’s high-needs
areas.

Across Richmond’s six city council districts, district 3 has the most RFCY-funded program sites, followed by district 1. These districts are also those
with lowest COI, indicating areas of highest need.
“In West Contra Costa, we’re
contracted with WCCUSD, Bay
Area Community Resources, and
Expanded Learning. We work in
schools and with afterschool programs, but we also work at housing sites, clinics, community centers. So we’re really reaching youth in a lot of different settings.”
—Program Director
0 100
Child Opportunity Index Score
City Council District Boundaries
Child Opportunity Index 3.0
2020 Census Tracts
2021 Data
Figure 7. Child
Opportunity Index
Across Richmond
9 1088
Serving Children
and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations
The majority of program sites are easily accessible via Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) buses and Richmond’s public shuttle service, Richmond Moves4 (Figure 8). Many are located in central Richmond and the Richmond
City Center—both of which are also accessible
by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Additionally,
several sites are situated in high-density neighborhoods, making them walkable for many local youth.

Grantees are implementing innovative strategies
to support youth with limited access to public
transportation. One organization partnered
with WCCUSD to offer no-cost transportation,
enabling students from across Richmond to
attend programs at two school sites. Another
launched its own bus route, allowing approximately 20 percent of participating families—who otherwise would have been unable to attend—to
access services.
4 The City of Richmond Office of Transportation Services reported that 15,826 students took rides on Richmond Moves between March 4 and December 31, 2024.

School-based programs help remove obstacles
that might prevent students from accessing
programs off campus. In total, 42 K–12 schools
hosted RFCY-funded programming, including
27 elementary, 4 middle, and 6 high schools.

The school sites include 40 WCCUSD schools.

Colleges and adult schools also partnered with
RFCY grantees. The approach of operating at
school sites meets children and youth where
they are and reduces potential barriers related
to transportation.

Throughout FY 2021–24, there were over
43,000 encounters with children and youth at
school sites.

AC Transit bus routes
Figure 8. AC Transit Routes Across Richmond
10 1089
Program Highlight
Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) has a
long history of partnering with schools,
the County Office of Education, and
community-based organizations. The
RFCY has directly supported the expansion of this program to operate in more schools by providing resources for FLY to
strengthen partnerships with schools.

In the 2022-23 school year, FLY forged
a partnership with a new school site,
Sylvester Greenwood Academy, which
allowed the program to serve 24 new
at-promise and justice system-impacted
Richmond youth.
“[RFCY is the] kind of funding that
… has been creative in addressing
an issue that [is] usually something that is a second thought to all the other services, and it’s
specific for youth. It’s been really
empowering for our kids to hear
that this money is for them and
about them.”
—Resource Development Administrator
11 1090
Schools Who Partner With RFCY-Funded Programs
A Aspire Richmond Ca. College
Preparatory Academy
Aspire Richmond Technology Academy
B Betty Reid Soskin Middle School
C Caliber: Beta Academy
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary
Coronado Elementary School
D De Anza High School
Dover Elementary School
E Edward M. Downer Elementary School
El Cerrito High School
F Ford Elementary School
G Golden Gate Community School
Grant Elementary School
Greenwood Academy
H Helms Middle School
Highland Elementary School
J John F. Kennedy High School
L Lake Elementary School
Leadership Public Schools: Richmond
Lincoln Elementary School
Lovonya DeJean Middle School
M Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
School
Michelle Obama Elementary School
Mira Vista Elementary School
Montalvin Manor
Murphy Elementary School
N Nystrom Elementary School
O Olinda Elementary School
P Peres Elementary School
Pinole Middle School
R Richmond Charter Elementary-Benito
Juarez
Richmond College Prep
Richmond High School
Riverside Elementary School
S Sheldon Elementary School
Stege Elementary School
T Tara Hills Elementary School
V Verde Elementary School
Vista Virtual Elementary School
Voices College-Bound Language
Academy at West Contra Costa County
W Washington Elementary School
West County Mandarin School
“That’s one of our biggest
thing[s]—incorporating the parents and the youth into morphing us into something that they really want to come to and share with their friends and family.”
—Program Founder
“The administration at all of the
schools were excited and expressed that they had been
waiting for an opportunity like
this. They were quick to support
our integration into [their] sites
and to do their part to support
our implementation.”
—Grantee report
12 1091
Reducing Service
Gaps
RFCY supports a diverse array of
programs that address critical
service gaps in Richmond.

Over the past 3 years, the RFCY has made a meaningful impact by enabling child- and youth-serving organizations to meet their ongoing
and evolving needs. While limited resources often
constrain organizations to focus on only the most
urgent needs, RFCY funding allowed grantees to
expand their capacity and meet the interconnected needs of their participants. Grantees provided over 215,000 hours of programming
to Richmond children and youth in FY 2021–24.

In focus groups, grantees spoke about the impact
of RFCY funding:
“It feels a lot better to know we’re
embedded in our community, not
just in the kids and the staff, but
also the funding.”
—Vice President of Programs
Types of Supported
Programming
• Providing Individual Support
Example activities: Individual counseling,
case management, private lessons, mental
health assessments, individual tutoring
• Providing Group Support
Example activities: Tutoring, reading circles,
workshops, field trips, college tours, summer
camps, after-school clubs
• Managing Internships
Example activities: Recruitment of interns,
coordinating with host sites, trainings for
interns
• Contracting With Other
Youth-Serving Organizations
Example activities: Contracts with partner
organizations for counseling services,
environmental education, dance classes
Grantees used funds to deliver individual supports, group programming, and internships and to address the basic needs of children and youth.

While each grantee organization receives funding for a specific program, the RFCY’s flexibility allows grantees to spend funds in ways that are
responsive to the community’s needs. For example, one program that offered support to parents in the form of parent workshops learned that
parents were hesitant about a group setting. In
response, the program began offering more individualized, one-on-one support. From adapting program models to shifting staff roles and incorporating youth feedback, grantees emphasized the importance of flexibility—especially in the
evolving, post-pandemic context.
“Because of this funding, our clinicians can more flexibly address the needs of the student, the school faculty, and promote
a more supportive and trauma-informed climate. The flexibility allows us to support youth and
their families ‘on the go,’ as the
needs arise, as often as needed,
and for as brief or as long a term
as needed.”
—Grantee Report
Addressing Basic Needs
RFCY-funded programs connected youth and
families to basic needs like transportation,
food and shelter, and access to technology
(Figure 9). Programs also trained participants in foundational skills such as financial management,
13 1092
public speaking, and navigation of the legal
system. Through these supports, programs facilitated positive short- and long-term outcomes for participants. One funded program, 18 Reasons,
shared that “participants are thankful for the food
provided through the program as well as the information on how to save money at the grocery store.” Parents/guardians were interested in programming for a variety of reasons. The most common reasons why parents/guardians enrolled their
child in the program was because they wanted
their child to participate in learning activities,
new experiences, and/or because the program
was free (Figure 10).

EducationRelated ServicesCounseling or
Other Mental
Health Services
Housing
Assistance
Medical or
Dental Care
Transportation
Tickets or Passes
Work-Appropriate
Clothing or
Work-Related
Equipment
Food AssistanceChildcare
35% 27% 25% 15%
14% 14% 10% 6%
Top Resources Received by Youth
Figure 9. Types of Resources Received by Youth
Note. Participants could select all that apply, so percentages do not add up to 100 percent. Parent/guardian survey respondents also reported that they were connected with worK–appropriate clothing or equipment (28%), childcare (25%), and education-related services (25%), alongside counseling (22%), food assistance (19%), housing assistance (16%), transportation assistance (16%), and medical or dental care (3%). 14 1093
I wanted my child to participate in learning activities.

The program is free.

I wanted my child to participate in new experiences.

I wanted my child to develop better social skills.

I wanted my child to be in a safe environment.

I wanted my child to gain more confidence.

I wanted my child to have opportunities to be with other young people.

I needed childcare.

My child wanted to enroll.

I believed the program would help my child do better in school. 56%
50%
50%
44%
44%
41%
38%
38%
34%
34%
Reasons Parents Enrolled their Child in Programming
Figure 10. Reasons Parents Enrolled Their Child in Programming Note. The chart above reflects 32 parent surveys from six funded programs. Respondents could select all that apply, so percentages may not add up to 100 percent. 15 1094
Programs by
Priority Area
Programs were funded under one of six priority areas that were identified through the 2020 Community Needs Assessment and Strategic
Investment Plan (see Figure 11): behavioral health:
mental health and wellness; education training
and employment/training support; out-of-school
time, after school, and sports and enrichment;
5 See Appendix D for full list of programs by priority area. Profiles of each funded program can be found in a supplemental file.
youth violence prevention; access to basic needs;
and information, guidance, and case management.5
Although each program was funded under
a single priority area, many grantees offered programming that crossed multiple priority areas.

See Appendix D for a complete list of funded programs and their funding amount, organized by priority area.
$3,007,657
33%
$2,128,957
23%
$2,026,335
22%
$805,300
9%
$620,000
7%
$536,008
6%
Out-of-School Time,
After School, Sports
& Enrichment
Education Support
& Employment/
Training Support
Youth Violence
Prevention
Information,
Guidance, & Case
Management
Access to
Basic Needs
Behavioral Health:

Mental Health
& Wellness
Priority Area of Funded Programs
FYS 21–24
Figure 11. Priority Area of Funded Programs
16 1095
Behavioral Health:

Mental Health and
Wellness
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $2,026,335
Number of Participant Encounters: 19,475
The RFCY funded 10 programs to increase access
to mental health services, reduce stigma around
mental health support, decrease substance
use, and promote greater awareness of avail-
able mental health resources at 26 sites. Funded
programs under this priority area provided ther-
apeutic interventions, resource connections,
mental health education, and advocacy to
enhance the behavioral health and well-being of
children and youth. Specifically, grantees offered
individual and group therapy, family advocacy
and support, school-based mental health ser-
vices, wellness classes in schools, integrative
healing-arts programming, mentorship, wrap-
around services, and case management. Funding
behavioral health services allows organizations to
address a broader set of participant needs that
wasn’t feasible in the past. For example, the Early
Childhood Mental Health Program shared that
RFCY funding allows them to provide services for
the prenatal population regardless of insurance.

The program manager explained, “Because of
Medi-Cal, we would have to diagnose infants [to
receive reimbursement]. And so, with this fund-
ing, we didn’t have the pressure of having to prove
medical necessity, and we were able to look at it
from a relational perspective on how we can pro-
vide services to the mothers and infants that we
were serving.”
Programs funded under this priority area: • Early Childhood Mental Health Program:

Perinatal Circle of Care
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program: Early
Childhood Mental Health Program
• Bay Area Community Resources: Mental
Health and Wellness Classes at Richmond
Schools (2 separate grants)
• Mindful Life Project: Mental Health and
Wellness Support for Richmond Schools
• New Life Movement: Reactions Program
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
17 1096
• West County Mandarin School PTA: Social
and Emotional Learning Enrichment
• Richmond Community Foundation: Sister
Circle
• Seneca Family of Agencies: Unconditional
Education School Partnerships
• Desarrollo Familiar: Youth Matters Program
Program Highlight
Mindful Life Project (MLP) was funded
by RFCY in FY 2022–24. MLP provides
mindfulness-based programming for
teachers, parents, and elementary and
middle school students. MLP led mindfulness sessions for teachers both one-on-one and at staff meetings, and
it hosted family mindfulness sessions
during weekly school-hosted Family
Coffee Hours. In addition, MLP provided
age-appropriate mindfulness sessions at
partner schools. The TK–2nd grade lessons focused on understanding emotions and how to identify them when they
arise. The 3rd-5th grade lessons focused
on brain science and how different parts
of the brain affect emotional responses.

The 6th-8th grade lessons emphasized
independent learning.
18 1097
Education Support and
Employment/Training
Support
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $2,128,957
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 9,456
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded 12 programs to provide educa-
tion support and employment training to promote
increased access to early learning, improved read-
ing, higher school attendance rates, higher school
graduation rates, improved college entry and
persistence, reductions in chronic absenteeism,
increased access to career and college resources,
and more opportunities and higher earnings for
youth and young adults at 49 sites.

Funded programs within this priority area
provided a variety of services to improve chil-
dren and youth’s education and employment
trajectories. Programs that served younger
children and youth provided experiential learn-
ing opportunities related to career exploration
(e.g., field trips, in-classroom demonstrations,
project-based learning) and academic supports to
improve literacy and reduce summer learning loss.

Programs under this priority area also prepared
young adults for post-high school opportunities
through college readiness workshops, college
tours, paid internships, apprenticeships, and
mentorship. When possible, programs also pro-
vided additional supports to address barriers that
their participants experienced, such as scholar-
ships for college, wraparound services, and parent
information workshops.

Programs funded under this priority area: • Bridges From School to Work: Job Readiness and Placement Program
• City of Richmond Employment and Training
Department: Healthcare Pathways Program
• City of Richmond Employment and Training
Department: Richmond BUILD
• College Is Real: Summer Bridge Program and
High School Programming
• Healthy Contra Costa: Richmond Youth
Health Advocacy Pathways
19 1098
• Improve Your Tomorrow: Support program
for young men
• Richmond Art Center: Supporting People’s
Outlooks, Talents, and Speech (SPOTS)
Mural Program
• Richmond Promise: Health Care Career
Connections for Richmond Promise Leaders
• Richmond Public Library: Drop-in homework
help and tutoring services
• Things That Creep: Neighborhood Snakes
program
• Urban Tilth: Urban Agriculture Academy
• Watershed Project: Green Collar Corps Youth
Employment Program
Program Highlight
The Watershed Project Green Collar Corps
was funded by RFCY in FY 2022–24. This
project funded 10 young people to participate in its program, which consisted of three components: team-building
field trips, a yearlong career development academy that provides training and project-based work experience,
and a community day. This program is
a career-building opportunity, particularly for high schoolers who face barriers to maintaining a balanced school, home,
and work life.

As the Youth Employment Program
Manager explained: “There are plenty of
kids who want to do [cool] things, but
they can’t. They can’t get to the office.

They can’t come after school. Or they
have to cook dinner for their younger
siblings in the evening. And so, thanks
to RFCY, we’re able to fund transportation, we’re able to fund meals, we’re able to fund materials and make it possible.”
20 1099
Out-of-School Time,
After School, Sports
and Enrichment
Funding Amount FY 21-24: $3,007,657
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 19,876
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded 20 programs to expand access
to out-of-school programs, increase year-round
learning opportunities, provide more diverse and
culturally relevant offerings, and increase no-cost
or subsidized programs at 47 sites.

Funded programs within this priority area provided culturally relevant and diverse free or low-cost programming that supports positive
youth development, empowers young people,
and provides academic enrichment. About half
of programs in this priority area operated during
the school year only, providing free after-school
clubs, field trips, and extracurricular activities.

Four programs under this priority provided fullday summer learning and enrichment programs that were free to participants. Six programs operated throughout the year, providing consistent opportunities for children and youth. Programs
included a variety of activities, including tutoring, physical activities, artistic development, cultural activities, and environmental awareness
and stewardship. Under this priority area, RFCY
grantees also used funds to build program staff
capacity and increase the number of spots available to participants in their programs.

Programs funded under this priority area:
• ABLE Community Development Foundation:

After-school enrichment club
• Aim High for High School: Summer Learning
Programs
• City of Richmond, Community Services:

Camp Achieve
• City of Richmond, Community Services:

Sports and Leadership Program
• Community Education Partnerships:

Educational Services
• DREAM Financial: Literacy Project
• East Bay Center for the Performing Arts:

Young Artist Diploma Program
• Richmond Freedom School:

Summer program
• Envisioneers Inc: Curriculum support and
after-school enrichment
• Social Progress: Academic tutoring
• Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation:

Oshi Entrepreneur Club
• Pogo Park: Enrichment Programs at Elm
Playlot
• Practice Space: Speak Together Be Together
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Community liaison
to support educational enrichment
programming
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Rosie Service Corps
• RYSE: Integrative Arts Programming
• Scientific Adventures for Girls: After-school
STEM program at WCCUSD Schools
• Watershed Project: Educational program
support for WCCUSD teachers
• West County Digs: School Garden
Renewal Program
• Youth Code Now: After-school program
21 1100
Program Highlight
Pogo Park was funded by RFCY in FY
2022–24 to provide enrichment programs
at Elm Playlot. During the 2023-24 school
year, Pogo Park provided 188 enrichment
opportunities to 544 children and youth
who came to the park. The program pro-
vided diverse activities to meet various
interests and needs of the community.

For example, Pogo Park offered dance
classes and an art station to nurture chil-
dren’s self-expression and collaboration;
a chess club to hone critical thinking,
decision-making, and focus; nature
exploration to instill curiosity; and a gar-
dening program to teach responsibility.

Collectively, these diverse programs
helped Richmond children and youth
thrive socially and emotionally. As one
staff member explained, “These spaces
serve as outlets for creativity, imagi-
nation, and self-expression, allowing
children to explore their interests and
develop their talents. Additionally, they
provide opportunities for social interac-
tion, building friendships, and enhancing
communication and cooperation skills.

Overall, these spaces empower low-in-
come children to thrive, discover their
potential, and lay a foundation for a
brighter future.”
22 1101
Youth Violence
Prevention
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $805,300
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 6,150
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to reduce the
number of youth who witness violence, become
involved in criminal activity, and perpetrate violence and bullying at 31 sites.

Programs within this priority area promoted
healthy child development and nonviolent coping
through positive adult relationships, peer-to-peer
groups, family support, outreach, and afterschool activities. Specifically, RFCY grantees supported young people by providing safe spaces,
legal education, mentorship, social–emotional
learning activities, and wraparound services. The
grantees’ programming sought to support youth
to make positive choices. Several RFCY grantees aimed to interrupt intergenerational cycles of violence by providing resources to parents and
offering individual and group counseling services.

As one grantee explained, “Abusive households
have profound impacts on [children’s and youth’s]
development. The trauma-informed service providers support our young clients to intervene in the cycle of abuse and trauma they develop.”
Programs funded under this priority area:
• Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra
Costa County - Speak Up Be Safe and
Nurturing Parenting Program
• Community Violence Solutions: H.O.P.E.

Counseling and Therapy Services
• Fresh Lifelines for Youth: Law-Related
Education
• Project Avary: Leadership Program for
Children of Incarcerated Parents
• Richmond Police Activities League: Youth
Diversion and Development program
Program Highlight
The Child Abuse Prevention Council
(CAPC) of Contra Costa County was
funded in FY 2021–24 to implement its
Speak Up Be Safe program and Nurturing
Parent Program. Speak Up Be Safe is a
culturally and linguistically competent
curriculum delivered to English- and
Spanish-speaking students at Cesar
Chavez, Lincoln, and Verde elementary
schools. The lessons teach children what
is and is not safe and when they should
talk to a safe adult. The Nurturing Parent
Program is a program for parents at Cesar
Chavez Elementary School that teaches
them about the protective factors for
child development. This multigenerational approach to interrupting violence is meaningful, as CAPC reported, “Parents
[shared] how their own parents raised
them and the parenting practices that
were normalized. … They acknowledged
their parents tried their best, and now
parents believe they have the opportunity to do better.” 23 1102
Access to Basic Needs
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $536,008
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 2,227
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded four programs to address the
basic needs of children and youth, such as housing, food security, childcare, transportation, and high-speed internet at 16 sites.

Programs within this priority area provided
childcare, meal and nutrition support, financial
counseling, rent assistance, trauma-informed
mental health support, and resource navigation.

Funding in this service area met basic needs by
providing nutrition education and groceries,
funding a homeless shelter for families, and providing computers to first-year college students.

RFCY programs were intentional about delivering culture- and language-specific services to overcome traditional barriers to access in marginalized communities.

Programs funded under this priority area:
• 18 Reasons: Cooking Matters Program
• Fresh Approach: Nutrition Education and
Resources
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program:

Shelter Services
• Richmond Promise: Technology Access for
First-Generation College Students
Program Highlight
Fresh Approach’s Youth Community
Ambassador program was funded during
FY 2022–24 to engage youth ages 18–24 in
part-time employment, mentorship, and
training in the topics of nutrition, food
access, and public health. Participants
earn nutrition and wellness coach certificates and gain job shadowing experience with reputable partner organizations.

With RFCY funds, Fresh Approach reports
that they have been empowering youth
to be healthy eating and wellness ambassadors to their communities. Moreover, every participant and their household
receive $10/week in VeggieRX vouchers.

This resource enables youth and their
families to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables from local farmers’ markets. 24 1103
Information, Guidance,
and Case Management
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $620,000
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 1,077
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to increase access
to information and build capacity for navigation
support, case management, and/or wraparound
services at 13 sites.

Programs within this priority area provided tangible resources for children, youth, and families.

The five funded programs within this service
area provided financial wellness and homeownership workshops, referrals, wraparound services, and/or case management to children,
youth, and their families.

Programs funded under this priority area:
• Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance: Family
Justice Center
• Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau:

Wraparound Services
• Greater Richmond Interfaith Program: Case
Management
• Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services:

High School to Homeownership (H2H)
Program
• Youth Finance Institute of America: Personal
Finance Workshop Program
Program Highlight
Richmond Neighborhood Housing
Services (RNHS) was funded in FY 2023-
24 to partner with Youth Finance Institute
of America (YFIA) and create a program
to support Black youth’s financial progress toward home ownership. Workshops explored budgeting and credit management to give youth the knowledge needed to make sound financial decisions as they
become adults. In their partnership, RNHS
and YFIA combined their areas of expertise to host a workshop explaining the connection between two seemingly disparate financial decisions—purchasing one’s first car and future homeownership: “We tied this workshop to one day purchasing a home by showing how
buying a car you cannot afford can delay
or even prevent homeownership in the
future, [and also] how having access to
reliable transportation is key to obtaining and retaining employment.” At the end of its funding cycle, RNHS indicated
that 100 percent of participants reported
improved knowledge on topics related to
the homebuying process.
25 1104
Assessing the
Quality of Funded
Programs
Programs funded by RFCY
are expected to provide highquality programming, as
measured by a series of universal
performance measures. T hese performance measures capture how well a program is performing relative to a
benchmark value that indicates adequate per-
formance. Appendix A includes a table of all
performance measures and their associated
benchmarks, which were determined in partner-
ship with RDCY and RFCY grantees (see Appendix
B for a description of partner engagement pro-
cesses). Transformational change that promotes
program quality requires sustained investment
over multiple years. During this initial data col-
lection period, performance measures provided a
point-in-time snapshot of program quality, which 6 Survey respondents who indicated they were attending the program for the first time were primarily from four pro -
grams. These programs were all at schools/in partnership with schools, and most of these respondents were middle school aged (90% ages 11-14). Possible explanations include (a) the respondent has attended the program before but hasn’t known it by name if the program came in and the student didn’t distinguish it separately from regular school activities or (b) the student may have been absent last time the program worked with the school and truly has not interacted with the program before. In both cases, WestEd is collaborating with grantees to improve data collection procedures to ensure collected data is a valid representation of funded programs. is expected to improve over time with continued
funding and targeted support from RDCY.

Grantees generated performance measurement
data based on surveys of 533 youth who attended
22 programs. Of the 533 survey respondents, 14
percent indicated that the survey was conducted
on their first day in the program—an important
consideration, as their limited exposure to the
program and staff may have influenced their
responses and affected the overall findings.
6 Grantee-level performance measures are pro-
vided to RDCY annually for performance
monitoring over the course of the grant period.

While the majority of grantees met the key perfor-
mance measures, some programs fell short (see
Figure 12). A disaggregated list of performance by
grantee was provided to the RDCY after the data
were collected to help identify which grantees
need additional support, if funded in the future.

The RDCY is developing technical assistance and
capacity-building offerings to support grant-
ees who fell below predetermined performance
benchmarks.
26 1105
Figure 12. Percentage of RFCY Grantees Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021–24
Program Satisfaction
Program Environment
Caring Adults
Sense of Belonging
92%
62%
62%
77%
Percent of RFCY Grantee Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021-24
Note. The Figure above includes data from 13 grantees who had at least 10 youth survey responses.

Only grantees who had at least 10 survey responses
are included in benchmark calculations.

Program Highlight
Richmond Freedom Schools leveraged
RFCY funding to improve the quality of
their services in a variety of ways—from
adding more afternoon enrichment
opportunities to sending food home
on the weekends to paying for field trip
transportation. As one staff member
summarized the impact of the RFCY on
program quality: “The program is already
a quality program at its base, but … this
money puts us over the top so we can
give our absolute best for the kids.”
RFCY Grantee Performance
Measures
• Program Participation: Number of
participants served as a percentage of the
program’s proposed number of participants
• Service Provision: Number of hours of
programming provided as a percentage of
the program’s proposed number of hours of
programming
• Program Satisfaction: Percentage of
surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I would recommend this program to
a friend.”
• Program Environment: Percentage of
surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I feel physically safe when I am at
this program.”
• Caring Adults: Percentage of surveyed youth
who agreed or strongly agreed, “There is an
adult at this program who cares about me.”
• Sense of Belonging: Percentage of surveyed
youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I have
a strong sense of belonging to a community
at this program.”
As depicted in Figures 13–17, findings from the
youth experience survey were mixed. Although
the majority of participants rated their programs positively across key items in the youth survey, a significant portion selected neutral
responses. These neutral ratings suggest that
while participants may not have had negative
experiences, they may also not have experienced
strong engagement or impact in certain areas of
programming. There are many possible reasons
for these neutral responses, including the amount
of time participants spent in the program or the
specific structure and activities offered.

A small but meaningful number of youth participants indicated negative experiences in their programs. While these responses represent a
minority, they are important indicators of areas
where program improvements may be necessary to ensure all youth feel safe, supported, and engaged. There are many potential reasons behind
these negative responses, including mismatches
between youth needs and program offerings,
inconsistencies in implementation, or interpersonal challenges within program environments.

Both neutral and negative ratings raise important questions about how youth are experiencing programs and what factors influence their experience in the program. WestEd and RDCY will explore these findings further in conversations
with community partners and grantees to better
understand youth perspectives and identify the
underlying causes. These insights will help shape
future supports—and, in some cases, required
improvements—to ensure quality programming
and more consistently positive experiences
for all youth.
27 1106
Participant Satisfaction
The majority of participants were satisfied with
the programs they attended (Figure 13). Outside
of the program satisfaction measures collected
as part of the RFCY evaluation, many grantees
collected their own program satisfaction data and
reported that, overall, their participants enjoyed
their programs. Youth participants expressed satisfaction with a range of programmatic aspects, including the loving and respectful community, the supportive structure, and the concrete skills gained. Most commonly, youth participants
expressed satisfaction through comments about
how “fun” or “safe” or “eye-opening” the program experience was for them. Similarly, the vast majority of parent survey respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that they liked the program,
they would recommend the program to another
parent, their child was interested in what they
do at the program, and they try new things (97%,
94%, 91%, and 94%, respectively). One youth participant from Fresh Lifelines for Youth shared their admiration for their program: “I honestly believe
the program organizers did a fantastic job and
deserve props for their hard work.”
Program Environment
RFCY funding has enabled most grantees to
create program environments that prioritize safety, support, creativity, and a sense of belonging (Figure 14). From green spaces to
in-school wellness centers, these environments
help youth feel secure, cared for, and empowered.

The program environments offered opportunities
for collaboration, relationship-building, and open
communication, while also encouraging youth
to express themselves and explore their interests and talents.

Grantees were also committed to building culturally and linguistically responsive spaces that supported emotional and physical well-being.

Some grantees focused on diverse hiring practices to reflect the communities they serve, while others integrated cultural competency into their
programming—celebrating traditions such as West
African and Mexican music and dance. Several
grantees also provided multicultural wraparound
services to holistically support youth from diverse
backgrounds. A participant from Desarrollo
Familiar shared, “In this program I can feel safe
that I will not be judged, and I can share my
ideas safely.”
I would recommend this program
to a friend.

I do things that make a
difference at this program.
6% 20% 33% 35%
9% 20% 33% 31%
14% 33% 17%
11% 20% 33% 29%
7% 18% 39% 29%
I like this program.

I am interested in what we do at
this program.

In this program, I try new things.

Participants Satisfaction With the Funded Programs
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 27%
5%
6%
6%
5%
5%
Figure 13. Participants’ Satisfaction With Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Fewer than 5 percent of participants fell into the “N/A” category for each item. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omission of “N/A” responses 28 1107
Caring Adults
Most RFCY grantees fostered strong, supportive networks of adults through programming that centered on youth well-being. Some did
this through behavioral health initiatives that
build trusting relationships with counselors
and mentors, while others offered arts enrichment programs in which youth connect with safe, caring instructors. A participant from the
East Bay Center for Performing Arts shared,
“The consistent instruction and support from
trusted adults is one of the most valuable
components of our program. … I call this place
my home away from home.” This sentiment
reflects a broader trend, as most youth indicated in surveys that they felt supported by caring adults in their programs (Figure 15).

Sense of Belonging
Grantees reported that RFCY-funded programs
fostered strong social connections among youth
by creating inclusive environments and offering a wide range of opportunities that promote belonging. These included team-building activities, nature discovery walks, inter-age buddy reading, and unstructured play. One program
specifically supported youth with incarcerated
parents by offering a safe and understanding
community of peers and counselors who share
similar experiences. And at Community Education
29%
31%
35%
26%
I feel physically safe when I am
at this program.

Adults at this program encourage
respect for others who are different
from me.

Adults at this program
understand my family’s culture.

This place is a comfortable
place to hang out.

Participants’ Satisfaction with Program Environment
Note: The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had three percent or fewer participants.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 5%
8%
23%
19%
15%
27%
37%
37%
42%
35%
Figure 14. Participants’ Satisfaction With Program Environment Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants.

There is an adult at this program who
cares about me.

There is an adult in this program who
believes I will become a success.

There is an adult in this program who
always wants me to do my best.

I can talk to adults at this program
about things that bother me.

Participants’ Perspectives on the Adults in Their Programs Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to omission of “N/A” responses.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 23% 36% 33%
24% 35% 32%
18% 38% 38%
6% 10% 28% 29% 26%
Figure 15. Participants’ Experiences With Adults in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 29 1108
Partnerships, students began referring to each
other as “cousins,” demonstrating a deep sense
of mutual support both within and beyond the
program.

A participant from Project Avary captured this
feeling of connection, saying, “When a youth
steps off the bus for their first time at a camp
or retreat, they suddenly know that they are no
longer alone and that they now have a community of support and belonging where every youth has this shared experience.” Survey results from
RFCY participants further reinforced this theme,
with youth expressing a strong sense of belonging in their programs (Figure 16).

Additional Participant
Experiences
In addition to the four areas of performance
described in the previous section, the participant surveys also included a range of other questions about participant experiences, which
are shared in this section. Overall, there were 533
youth and 32 parent/guardian survey respondents. However, the number of respondents to each section described here differ due to the
survey structure.

I can usually be myself
in this program.

I feel like I matter
in this program.

I have a strong sense of
belonging to a community
at this program.

Participants’ Sense of Belonging in their Program
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 7% 15% 17% 27% 29%
9% 13% 21% 23% 27%
7% 13% 22% 30% 21%
Figure 16. Participants’ Sense of Belonging in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omission of “N/A” responses.
30 1109
Building Connections
• 93% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me learn how to get along with
others.”
• 87% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me make new friends.”
Leadership and Advocacy
• 94% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I better understand
solutions to problems in my community.”
• 90% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming to
this program, I am better at saying ‘no’
to things I know are wrong.”
• 88% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more aware about
what is going on in my community.”
• 82% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more of a leader.”
College Preparation
• 83% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true
that “because of this
program, I understand
the steps I need to
take to get into
college.”
RFCY program participants formed meaningful
connections within supportive, nurturing environments.

Youth had opportunities to explore their identities, strengthen social and emotional skills, and engage in open, trusting dialogue with peers and
adults. Through activities that encouraged peer
bonding and community responsibility, they
developed a deeper sense of belonging and
purpose. Project-based learning fostered collaboration, while service-oriented projects taught youth how to contribute to and support their
broader communities.

Through RFCY-funded programs, Richmond
youth engaged in diverse experiences that
nurtured their leadership and advocacy skills.

Several grantees offered community service and
civic engagement opportunities, encouraging
youth to become stewards of shared environments. Other programs focused on self-discovery and helping youth understand their role within a
broader community. Some initiatives provided
structured advocacy pathways, training youth
to present to city and county boards. Others
hosted showcases to build communication and
public-speaking skills. Across these varied experiences, youth gained critical life skills, a deeper sense of agency, and the confidence to lead—
emerging as empowered voices in their
communities.

RFCY-funded programs equipped
Richmond youth with the skills, knowledge, and mindsets needed to pursue and succeed in college. Some programs
emphasized critical thinking by engaging
youth in real-world projects, while others
provided targeted college preparation support—such as helping students meet eligibility requirements or navigate the admissions process.

Several programs awarded scholarships for study
in specific fields, such as the arts. Recognizing
that college preparation can be stressful, many
programs also integrated mental health services,
including case management and crisis intervention, to support students more holistically. From financial aid guidance and college campus tours
to “high school roadmaps,” RFCY grantees have
been using their funding to ensure youth of all
ages feel prepared, supported, and empowered
to pursue higher education.
“I feel like this program really pushes
me and encourages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for
the Performing Arts
participant, age 16
31 1110
Academic Success
• 67% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
makes learning fun.”
• 65% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “what I learn
at this program helps me be more
successful in school.”
• 56% reported it was somewhat, mostly
or completely true that “because of this
program, I am more motivated to learn
in school.”
Life Skills
• 95% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me to think about the future.”
• 89% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “I have learned
new skills that will help me achieve my
goals.”
• 86% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learn how to set goals and
meet them.”
RFCY-funded programs supported Richmond
youth in building both academic skills and confidence. Many grantees used project-based learning approaches to engage youth in real-world
challenges—such as identifying ways for communities to have access to clean water—that required critical thinking and creative problem-solving.

Other initiatives offered comprehensive academic supports not typically available in schools, including personalized tutoring, mentoring, life
skills counseling, and college readiness coaching.

These individualized services helped students feel
more prepared and capable in their academic pursuits. Some youth also developed leadership skills by mentoring younger peers, reinforcing their own
learning in the process. Across programs, participants reported greater confidence in their academic abilities, improved reading comprehension, more
positive attitudes toward learning, and increased
interest in fields such as STEM and the arts.

Youth reported learning the following skills:
• Write a resume (39%)
• Complete an application (34%)
• Make better choices
about spending (29%)
• Interview for a job (28%)
• Search for a job (22%)
• Open a bank account (16%)
• Make a budget (15%)
• Fill out official forms (12%)
RFCY grantees offered transformative experiences that helped Richmond children and youth build essential life skills. Through hands-on,
project-based learning, youth learned to
express themselves and collaborate effectively.

Mentorship and mindfulness training fostered
core social–emotional competencies, including
self-awareness, self-management, communication, leadership, and problem-solving. Workshops equipped youth with practical skills in budgeting,
personal finance, organization,
goal setting, and navigating
the legal system. These
trainings and workshops
provided structured
opportunities to apply
these lessons in real life.

As a result, participants
reported feeling more
confident in their ability to
make healthy, informed decisions about their futures.
“You can express
yourself and you
can be yourself.“
—Community
Violence Solutions
participant, age 16
32 1111
Career and Trade Job
Readiness • 93% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me to understand how to get the
kind of job I want.”
• 91% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learned about jobs I can have
in the future.”
• 87% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
has helped me learn how to work
independently with focus.”
• 84% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “at this
program, I learned what is expected in a
work setting.”
• 67% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learned about an industry
that I am interested in (e.g., IT, health
care, culinary arts).”
Overall, 77 percent of career
and job readiness respon-
dents reported receiving
the following supports: • A paid job (42%) • A volunteer opportunity (35%)
• A paid internship (13%) • An unpaid internship (3%) • An unpaid job (3%) RFCY program participants engaged in robust
career and trade job readiness activities designed
to expand their horizons and prepare them for the
future. Through structured workshops and field
trips, Richmond youth met professionals in fields
such as biology, engineering, and even space
exploration—gaining exposure to a wide range of
career possibilities. Some programs introduced
youth to skilled trades, such as carpentry and
welding, while others offered specialized train-
ing, such as healthcare occupational skills that
counted toward certification. Participants
also received individualized support, includ-
ing resume reviews, regular checK–ins, and
personalized guidance, to help them navi-
gate career pathways. Programs addressed
common barriers to success by offer-
ing resources and mentorship to help
youth manage stress, peer pressure, and
family responsibilities.
“I have fun and
learn at the same
time.”
—Social Progress
participant, age 18
“I liked this expe-
rience because it
helped me with
talking more
and being more
comfortable.”
—Rosie’s Service Corps
participant, age 13
33 1112
RFCY programs supported the physical, mental,
and emotional well-being of Richmond youth.

Some grantees partnered with schools to deliver
small-group mindfulness or social-emotional
learning lessons to students in close coordina-
tion with school staff. Others collaborated with
local agencies to provide wraparound services
for youth and their families. Programs such as
Pogo Park offered opportunities for physi-
cal activity, including dance and horse or pony
rides, through partnerships
with other Richmondbased organizations.

Collectively, these
programs helped
youth build emo-
tional regulation
skills, adopt healthy
physical habits such
as nutritious eating,
and develop strategies
to cope with trauma and daily
stressors, including community violence.

Youth frequently expressed appreciation for
these supports, noting the lasting impact on
their well-being. As one 8th grader shared,
“Mindfulness [is] important to me because it
helps me calm down in tough situations and it
allows me to manage them better.” Many echoed
this sentiment, highlighting the powerful role that
RFCY programs play in equipping youth with tools
for healing, resilience, and self-care.

Physical, Mental, and
Emotional Health • 77% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “this
program has taught me to deal with my
problems in a positive way (like asking
for help).”
• 74% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
teaches me how to be healthy.”
• 71% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
has helped me cope with stress.” “I feel like this program has helped me so much”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 16
34 1113
Grantee Approaches
to Assessing and
Improving Program
Quality
Grantees actively
measure impact and
participant learning
Many grantees administered their own participant surveys to track growth over the course of their programs. For instance, The Watershed
Project uses surveys to assess how participants’
learning progresses over time. Other grantees are
conducting impact evaluations, focusing on strategic planning, and establishing actionable goals to ensure their programs yield measurable
outcomes.

Community
engagement is central
to grantees’ work
One key lesson that grantees identified
is that meaningful community engagement is essential to building high-quality programs. They found that authentic engagement goes beyond outreach—it involves actively including youth and families in shaping the future
of their own communities.

Grantees indicated that clear, consistent communication is critical to successful program implementation and growth. Grantees who
established open lines of communication with
partners and participants reported stronger
engagement, smoother delivery, clearly defined
roles, effective contingency planning, and greater
overall buy-in.
“We are conducting regular
program evaluations to assess
the effectiveness and impact
of our interventions, identify
areas for improvement, and
make data-driven decisions to
optimize outcomes. This
ongoing process of
evaluation and adaptation ensures that
the project remains
responsive to the
evolving needs of
the community and
maintains its relevance
and effectiveness over time.”
—Grantee Report
“When we are working together towards the same goal, we demonstrate how beautiful and
heartwarming are the people of
our community. Working together allows us to help each other and the children of this community, which are the future of this beautiful community.”
—Grantee Report
RFCY-funded programs are strengthened by the
support of formal partners, local businesses, volunteers, and parents throughout the Richmond community. Grantees noted that, over the course
of their grant periods, they were encouraged by
the strong interest from community members
eager to volunteer their time. This mobilization of
community support played a key role in program
success, helping to sustain long-term impact
through deeper engagement with participants,
donors, volunteers, and other interest holders.

Many grantees also reported expanding their
partnerships with community organizations and
institutions, a reflection of the growing positive
public perception of RFCY-funded initiatives.
“[This is a] very
helpful program
for someone who
starts their
first job.”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 19
35 1114
Multiple grantees described
that schools were particularly committed to supporting RFCY-funded programs, which
helped facilitate smooth
program implementation: “The administration at all of the schools were excited
and expressed that
they had been waiting for an opportunity
like this. They were quick
to support our integration into
[their] sites and to do their part
to support our implementation.”
—Grantee Report
Grantees collect participant and community
feedback by the following:
• Conducting surveys and focus groups with
students, parents, or teachers (e.g., annual
program surveys, post-session surveys for
teachers and parents, literacy surveys
for youth)
• Engaging and elevating
community voice (e.g., Youth
Ambassador Programs, Youth
Committee, direct observation)
• Participating in ongoing
dialogue with partners and
collaborators (e.g., conversations
with school staff that provide deeper
insights into student needs or preferences)
Grantees responded to feedback in a variety
of ways:
• Adjusting program design to include different
age groups and/or the types of services
offered (Aim High, Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation; CEP; Bay Area Community
Resources; Watershed Project Educational
Programs; DREAM)
• Revising and/or developing curriculum to
address implementation barriers (18 Reasons,
Aim High)
• Engaging district officials for districtlevel endorsements to support school-level student outreach (Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation)
• Expanding volunteer recruitment to fill
volunteer vacancies post-COVID (CEP)
• Revising internal evaluation tools to capture
reliable and valid participant feedback
(Things That Creep)
• Integrating feedback with broader
organizational goals and strategic planning
(RYSE)
“Community involvement in the
decision-making process ensures that the programs … truly reflect their needs and aspirations. Community voices are essential for creating relevant and
impactful programs.”
—Grantee Report
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emotions and know
that they’re in my
control.”
—Desarrollo Familiar
Participant, age 16
36 1115
RFCY Grants
Support
Programs’
Organizational
Capacity and
Sustainability
RFCY plays a vital role in
strengthening organizational
health and supporting
sustainable program models. While no more than 20 percent of the grant funds may be allocated to indi-
rect costs, grantees are using their indirect
allotment to cultivate meaningful partnerships,
enhance sustainable program design, build
organizational capacity, and engage in frequent
community engagement and robust program
evaluation. Collaborations with local schools,
community-based organizations, and the school
district allow grantees to share resources and
expertise, expand their reach, and deliver last-
ing support to youth and families. In addition,
grantees are actively diversifying their funding
streams to sustain and grow their efforts beyond
RFCY funding.
“This funding has given us the
opportunity to look forward and
plan ahead. ... [The fund is] giv-
ing back our voice because we’re
not limited on what we can do
and it gives us an opportunity
to look at new ways to do com-
munity outreach, look for other
sources of funding. It’s strength-
ening the partnerships with us
and other [community-based
organizations].”
—Program Coordinator
Capacity Building for
Grantees
When RFCY grantee organizations build their
internal capacity, children and youth directly
benefit from higher-quality programming. When
submitting their RFCY application, grantee annual
budgets ranged from $25,000 to over 151 million
dollars, with 42 percent of grantees having annual
budgets less than 1 million dollars. The funding
amount made up less than 10 percent of the
operating budget for most grantees (57%)
and added more than 50 percent to the
operating budgets for three grant-
ees. Because RFCY funding
37 1116
accounts for only a small percentage of most
grantees’ total operating budget, its ability to
drive immediate change may be limited. While the
funding may not be sufficient to scale programs,
invest in infrastructure, and support long-term
planning in the first funding year, over time, and
combined with other funding sources, RFCY can
contribute to each of these organizational goals.

Grantees built their capacity by hiring additional
staff, increasing salaries, enhancing professional
development opportunities, and improving volunteer recruitment efforts. Others were invested in strategic planning and refining internal systems
and operational structures to support long-term
effectiveness and sustainability.

RFCY catalyzed
collaboration in Richmond
The RFCY actively fostered collaboration by
funding nine “collaboration” grantees to implement programs that required partnerships between at least two organizations. In addition, many grantees funded as “single agencies” partnered with schools, businesses, and community organizations to deliver high-quality, community-responsive programming. In focus
groups, one program leader shared, “RFCY has
really brought us all together,” highlighting how
the initiative has encouraged community-based
organizations to build stronger, more coordinated
partnerships across the city.

Partnerships enabled programs to more effectively and sustainably address challenges, such as participant recruitment and program access.

These collaborations also helped grantees overcome barriers, coordinate services, and better meet the diverse needs of Richmond’s youth and
families. For example, Bay Area Community
Resources partnered with the California
Department of Education and the Sandy Hook
Promise Foundation to deliver specialized trainings
for 6th grade students—opportunities that would
not have been feasible for the grantee to provide
on its own. These trainings focused on reducing
social isolation, enhancing peer relationships, and
preventing bullying and violence in schools.

Grantees partnered with healthcare professionals,
universities, and community-based organizations
to strengthen their staff’s capacity to meet the
needs of youth and families. For example, Rosie’s
Service Corps, which supports LGBTQ+ youth
facing fears around employment discrimination,
partnered with the Rainbow Community Center
to provide staff with specialized LGBTQ+ training. This collaboration helped ensure that staff were better equipped to offer inclusive, affirming support to the youth they serve. “While we have a plan in place to
facilitate more school and district
contracts, [RFCY] grant funding
remains essential to helping us
reach high-need student populations and increase our capacity to provide the highest-quality programming for Richmond students and take on more schools.” —Grantee Report
$1,581,457
administered to 9
collaborative programs
100% of grantees funded in FY 2021
or FY 2022 were re-funded the following fiscal year. Funding for FY 2025-28 shifted to a 3-year grant that does not
require grantees to reapply each year.
38 1117
“Effective communication and
collaboration among stakeholders—including school district officials, teachers, parents, and mentors—are vital. ... Addressing
communication gaps and fostering strong partnerships facilitates better coordination and support
for at-risk youth.”
—Grantee report
Collaboration Program Highlight
D.R.E.A.M. Financial Academy and Just
Imagine KidZ Literacy Project co-deliver
summer and after-school programs to
youth ages 8-17 on a variety of topics,
including financial literacy, STEM, and
Black history education. Before RFCY, the
program creators used their own money
to fund their offerings. During the 2022–
23 school year, the program served twice
as many children and youth than they had
originally proposed due to their collaborative funding model. During the 2023–24 school year, D.R.E.A.M. added another
collaboration with Junior Achievement
of Northern California to incorporate a
career exploration component to the
program.

RFCY helped emerging
programs grow
their organizational
infrastructures
RFCY intentionally invested in eight small and
emerging programs during FY 2021–24. These
programs had unique support needs to hire staff,
build infrastructure, and secure additional funding. RFCY grantees are required to provide data to RDCY throughout the grant period, which pushed
some organizations to grow and improve their
internal capacity.
“[RDCY] helped us think together
about what the program needed
from an infrastructure standpoint in
order to deliver the services. [RDCY’s
requirements allowed us] to co-write
very strong grants and we got funding for it. ... And that team that was one and a half people at the beginning, is now a team of five people” —Program Director
Small and Emerging
Program Highlight
Richmond Freedom School was established in 2021 as a 6-week literacy program for TK–6 children in Richmond.

It was funded by RFCY as a small and
emerging summer program in FY 2022–

24. Each program day included integrated
reading curriculum, enrichment activities,
intergenerational leadership development,
two meals and a snack, and field trips on
a weekly basis. Since becoming an RFCY
grantee, Richmond Freedom School became
sustainable by securing over $100,000 in
individual contributions, establishing a partnership with WCCUSD, and recruiting 60 volunteers. The director intends to pursue
additional grant opportunities and funds
from schools, faith-based organizations,
and community partnerships.
$559,957
administered to 8 small and
emerging programs
39 1118
Grantees’ Fiscal Health
and Sustainability
Multiyear RFCY funding
supported grantees’
planning and growth
The ability to receive RFCY funding over multiple years enables grantees to develop long-term business strategies and allocate resources
toward securing additional funding. Many grantees expressed enthusiasm about RFCY’s shift to a 3-year grant cycle beginning in FY 2025, noting
that this change will support more sustainable
investments in program improvement and organizational growth.

Grantees pursued
additional funding sources
to support sustainability
To secure additional funding, several grantees
launched fundraising campaigns, while others
received fiscal support through new grant opportunities. Some shared that receiving RFCY funding helped strengthen their credibility, as city funding
served as a “stamp of approval” that appealed to
other funders. For example, Pogo Park is actively
expanding its donor base and increasing earned
income as part of its effort to “build a resilient
financial framework that can withstand fluctuations in income streams.” “I don’t think there’s another partner out there who provides a multiyear level of support the way the Richmond Fund does and to the
depths of that support—it’s really
transformative. And so, while we
definitely can find ways to keep
the program going, [it is] so much
easier with this good partnership
and it allows us to plan for the future, knowing that the population of students on site will continue to
increase and knowing that we will
need to be there to support them.”
—Program Director
To support program sustainability, many grantees combined RFCY funding with other sources, including local foundations, school districts,
county agencies (such as health and probation
departments), and state grant programs. During
focus groups, grantees noted that many of these
existing funding sources come with restrictions
that limit who can be served. By strategically braiding RFCY dollars with other funds, grantees are able to fill service gaps and extend their program reach.

For example, some programs receive funding from
WCCUSD, which can only be used for students
enrolled in the district—excluding Richmond children and youth who attend other schools. RFCY funding helps bridge these gaps, ensuring more
equitable access to services across the community. Furthermore, emergent programs were able to leverage this data to secure additional funding.
40 1119
“When we tell people from different companies, ‘Hey, we’ve got the support of the Richmond
Fund for Children and Youth,’ that
helps us. That’s a big deal because
they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, the city is
actually supporting this program.’
So that not just legitimizes it, but
it makes them feel stronger about
supporting us.”
—Executive Director
“Additional funding sources allow
you to serve a greater variety of
kids. … We were able to take in
both charter students from the
city of Richmond as well as kids
that the school district will pay
for. And so again, with diversified
funding, you find a way to kind of
pay for everything in pieces.”
—Executive Director
41 1120
Implementation
Challenges
RFCY Grantees and the Richmond
Department for Children and
Youth experienced a variety
of challenges over the course
of their grant period.

COVID-19
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many
youth and families faced significant crises.

Grantees funded in 2021 encountered major challenges, including school closures and the need to quickly transition to virtual programming. Even
after schools reopened, grantees continued to
navigate emerging post-pandemic needs—most
notably, increased demand for mental health support and disparities in learning loss. In response, many programs integrated trauma-informed
practices and mental health referrals into their
core services. As one grantee shared, “Youth are
dealing with more than we anticipated. ... We
added more emotional intelligence sessions and
formed small support groups to respond to the
level of emotional need.”
Barriers to Access and
Attendance
While many of the RFCY programs are easily
accessible by public transportation, some are
not. The program lead of one grantee organization pointed out, “Some folks are coming from South Richmond or North Richmond, and so if
they don’t have reliable transportation, if they
don’t have cars, it can just be difficult for them
to get to our program, to come to our meetings.”
Another grantee described the challenges that
participants have accessing internships both
locally and outside the city due to limited transportation options.

Grantees reported recruitment challenges in
reaching the children and youth most in need.

In one case, limited communication between
staff and families delayed the identification and
referral of at-risk youth who would have benefited
from New Life Movement’s Reaction Program—a
behavioral health initiative designed to address
and redirect harmful behaviors. Another grantee
aimed to provide youth-specific supports for all
children living in its shelter program. However,
the transitional nature of families moving in and
out of the shelter made consistent engagement
difficult.

For some grantees offering multi-week programs,
maintaining consistent attendance was a challenge due to family vacations, summer sports, and other scheduling conflicts. One grantee working primarily with families noted the difficulty of engaging parents, explaining that “guardians
often have numerous other commitments in addition to picking up their children from school or after-school care.” To address these challenges,
many grantees relied on strong partnerships.

Collaborating with schools and community organizations helped them identify optimal times and strategies for engaging participants and sharing
83% of grantees served more children and
youth than they had originally proposed.
83%
37% of grantees provided more hours of
services than they had originally proposed.
37%
42 1121
information. Partners also played a key role in
overcoming participation barriers—offering transportation support or helping with scheduling to increase accessibility.
“At the beginning of the project
... we faced significant challenges with youth recruitment and attendance … due to staffing constraints and limited partnerships for recruiting young adults for our
workshops. … Our initial struggles highlighted the necessity of building a robust recruitment
pipeline and establishing strong
community partnerships from
the outset.”
—Grantee report
Scheduling and
Communication Issues
With Partners
Grantees faced a range of challenges when partnering with school sites, particularly around communication and scheduling. Many reported
difficulties with timely information sharing and
misaligned calendars between their programs
and school partners. For example, one grantee
designed a 12-week program model but had to
adjust it for a school operating on an 8-week
quarter system. As a result, the program lost
about half of its participants for that quarter.

Staffing Shortages and
Turnover
Some grantees faced staffing transitions or limited staffing capacity, which affected their ability to deliver programming. Throughout the funding
period, those experiencing staffing challenges
reported actively recruiting new team members.

In some cases, staff shortages led to reduced
program offerings. This issue also extended to
grantees who relied heavily on consistent volunteer support, highlighting the broader impact of staffing gaps on program implementation.
“We were asked to complete a
new process with the district,
which prevented us from serving
students at [our originally proposed school] for most of the academic school year. Despite our immediate efforts to submit the
required paperwork, the response
was delayed in coming, so we focused our efforts on serving students at [another school]. We took the opportunity to implement curriculum at [the other school] and piloted a semester-long program.”
—Grantee report
“With staff transitions that took
place over the course of our
grant,] a number of our programs
have needed to either be put on
hold or be adjusted to account for
a decrease in staff.”
—Grantee report
43 1122
In addition, staffing changes within schools
sometimes delayed program implementation.

In cases of teacher turnover, some grantees
had to pause their programs until a new point
of contact was identified. Occasionally, the new
contact lacked the interest or capacity to support external programming. While grantees had little control over school staffing shortages or
transitions, strong communication with school
partners helped mitigate disruptions and minimize the impact on program delivery. “Within these partnerships, it has
given us valuable insights to the
school system and some of the
challenges or barriers they are experiencing, such as inadequate teachers or transition of key staff,
which ultimately could have a
negative or positive impact on
[our] programming.”
—Grantee report
Limited Grantee
Organizational Capacity
Grantees reflected that larger funding
amounts would better support the delivery of
high-quality, consistent programming. While
many aimed to dedicate more staff time to
direct services, they also had to manage essential administrative responsibilities needed to keep their organizations running effectively. Some
grantees reported having growing waitlists but
lacked the physical space and organizational
capacity to fully meet this rising demand.
“Our primary challenge remains
managing the daily administrative tasks required to run a nonprofit, while also finding time or assistance for grant writing to secure more consistent funding.” —Grantee report
Limited RDCY
Organizational Capacity
During the RFCY’s first funding cycle, the RDCY
was simultaneously responsible for funding and
monitoring grantees while also building a new city
department from the ground up. This included
hiring and training staff, developing internal systems, managing an external evaluation team, and creating a program model to deliver and
oversee the RFCY. These foundational efforts,
which spanned the first several years of grant
implementation, placed significant demands on
RDCY’s capacity and impacted the level of support that RDCY staff could provide to grantees.

Overall, results from the grantee survey indicate
that grantees were generally satisfied with RDCY
staff (Figure 17).
5%
11%
24%
38%
Very Satisfied 22%
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Figure 17. Grantee’s Overall Satisfaction With
RDCY (N = 37)
44 1123
The majority of grantees indicated that RDCY
staff were valuable partners in their work (76%),
RDCY staff provided helpful guidance and feedback (73%), they felt comfortable approaching RDCY staff when problems arose (84%), and
they felt that RDCY provided valuable resources
and support that goes beyond grant funding
(54%; see Figure 18).

Despite these strengths, grantees also encountered challenges with staff responsiveness and communication. One grantee shared, “It was a
challenge to get in touch with staff members who
could give us an update on payments.” Delays in
processing grant agreements and invoices—largely
due to RDCY’s limited capacity—were a common
concern. As one grantee explained, “The grant
process is very well-organized, but the invoices
take far too long to process,” while another noted,
“Reimbursements were processed very slowly,
sometimes extending for weeks, which affected
the program’s flow.”
Grantees also expressed frustration with unclear
or inconsistent forms and reporting instructions.

One remarked, “The forms and instructions can
be unclear, contradictory, or duplicative.” Some
found the reporting requirements more intensive than those of other funders. Many of these issues are being addressed in the next cycle of
RFCY funding, with the implementation of the
Submittable platform for grantees to submit
required reporting and invoicing documents using
a standardized, online template.

Still, many grantees conveyed optimism, expressing hope that as RDCY continues to build its internal capacity, improvements in systems,
communication, and responsiveness will follow.

Note. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer respondents.

I view RDCY staff as valuable
partners in this work.

I feel comfortable approaching RDCY
staff when a problem or issue arises.

RDCY staff respond to questions or
concerns within a few business days.

RDCY provides valuable resources and
supports to my organization that go
beyond grant funding.

RDCY staff provide helpful
guidance and feedback.

RFCY Grantee’s Service and Support Satisfaction
Note: Bars without data labels had three percent or fewer respondents.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 16%
11%
16%
11%
32%
32%
11%
8%
11%
30%
51%
38%
30%
5% 35%
24%
32%
35%
46%
11%
Figure 18. RFCY Grantee’s Service and Support Satisfaction (N = 37) 45 1124
Recommendations
to Improve the
Richmond Fund
for Children and
Youth
As RFCY continues to fund
programs through FY 2027,
WestEd offers a set of
recommendations grounded in
evaluation findings and youth
development best practices. I
mplementing these strategies can enhance
RFCY’s impact on child- and youth-serving orga-
nizations and the communities they serve.

Prioritize Flexible
Funding
Continue to prioritize the RFCY funding model
that allows grantees to respond dynamically to
community needs. This adaptability supported
program pivots, individualized services, and inno-
vative programming aligned with emerging needs
and youth and family feedback.

Support Capacity
Building for Program
Quality
Increase technical assistance and capacitybuilding efforts for organizations on program quality. Program quality supports include net-
working events and training around youth
development, collaboration with schools, and
data collection and reporting. Performance
measures and findings from the youth experi-
ence survey can inform what tailored technical
assistance supports grantees may benefit from.

Small and emerging organizations may need more
intensive supports unique to the organizational
challenges they face.

Promote Long-Term
Sustainability Planning
Encourage and support grantees to engage in
long-term strategic planning, diversify revenue
streams, and braid RFCY funds with other fund-
ing sources. This might include providing technical
assistance focused on administrative infrastruc-
ture, data reporting, and sustainable funding
strategies.
46 1125
Enhance
Communication and
Responsiveness
Improve clarity and consistency in communication with grantees, especially regarding invoicing, reporting requirements, and instructions about
forms. Build systems to expedite invoicing and
payments. Investing in staffing and systems at
RDCY will improve support and responsiveness.

Increase Access
Supports and Promote
Attendance
Address barriers to access and attendance by
supporting grantees with funds or partnerships
that allow for transportation solutions, expanded
hours, or flexible program formats to increase
reach to high-need populations.

Strengthen School
and Community
Partnerships
Identify opportunities to streamline partnerships
between grantees and schools, including clear
coordination processes, calendar alignment, and
designated points of contact to mitigate disruptions due to staff turnover.

Deepen Youth and
Community Voice
Continue and deepen participatory evaluation,
grant-making, and needs assessment efforts with
youth and community members. Their insights
led to more relevant, inclusive, and effective programming and should remain central in future evaluation and planning efforts. Grantees found
value in community and participant feedback
on their programs. Efforts to deepen youth
and community voice will support continuous
improvement and youth empowerment.
47 1126
Conclusion
The RFCY has made a
significant, measurable impact
on Richmond’s children,
youth, and families in its
first three funding cycles.

By investing over $9.1 million across 56 programs and supporting more than 58,000 encounters with children and youth, RFCY has
expanded grantee programs’ reach, closed service
gaps, strengthened the capacity of local organizations, and facilitated high-quality programming.

The evaluation findings highlight RFCY’s success in promoting equity, supporting the whole child, and empowering grantees to
meet evolving community needs. Programs
demonstrated strong performance across key
quality indicators and achieved meaningful
outcomes in areas such as academic success, mental health, leadership, and life skills.

Although challenges persist, the commitment of
grantees, community partners, and the RDCY to
continuous improvement is evident. With sustained investment and ongoing collaboration, the RFCY is well positioned to deepen its impact
and advance its vision of a thriving, equitable
Richmond for all children and youth.
48 1127
Appendix A.

Evaluation
Planning Process
The evaluation plan was
developed over 10 months in
collaboration with the RDCY,
the RFCY Oversight Board, RFCY
grantees, and Richmond youth.

Document Review
RDCY provided WestEd with copies of all RFCY
grantee contracts, contract amendments, progress reports, and quarterly reports from March 2021 through December 2023. WestEd reviewed
these materials to develop a comprehensive
understanding of RFCY-funded programs and to
compile an inventory of each grantee’s internal
evaluation design and measures. In addition,
WestEd conducted a comparative review of evaluation frameworks used by similar funding initiatives in neighboring cities, including Oakland
and San Francisco. This review included youth
and staff survey instruments as well as key performance metrics.

Table 1. Core Performance Measures for RFCY Grantees
Topic Measure Benchmark
Program participation Number of participants served as a percentage of the program’s projected number of participants 85%
Service provision hours
Number of hours of programming provided as a
percentage of the program’s projected hours of
programming
85%
Program satisfaction Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I would recommend this program to a friend.” > 50% Program environment Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I feel physically safe when I am at this program.” > 70% Caring adults
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “There is an adult at this program who cares
about me.”
> 70%
Sense of belonging
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I have a strong sense of belonging to a
community at this program.”
> 50%
49 1128
Listening Sessions With
RFCY Grantees
In October 2023, WestEd facilitated two listening sessions with RFCY grantees representing all six priority areas. The sessions aimed to deepen
WestEd’s understanding of the diverse programs
funded by RFCY, the populations they serve, how
grantees utilize RFCY funds, and how their programs address the needs of children and youth.

Insights from these sessions helped refine the
primary evaluation questions and informed the
overall approach to data collection.

Development of
Performance Measures
The RFCY evaluation is designed to measure
whether funded programs are offering highquality programming. To define and measure program quality, WestEd created a community-informed list of universal performance measures.

A performance measure is a number or a quantity that shows how well a program is performing relative to a predetermined benchmark value
that represents adequate performance. WestEd
collaborated with RDCY, the Oversight Board,
Richmond youth, and grantees to identify performance measures that are reported on an annual basis. The selected performance measurement
use data from grantee-reported service provision
data and the youth experience survey (Table 1).

Pilot Evaluation
WestEd conducted a pilot evaluation to test the
surveys and survey protocols. Six RFCY-funded
programs were selected to participate in the
pilot: Sister Circle, Bridges From School to Work,
Social Progress, Community Violence Solutions,
Contra Costa Family Justice Center, and East
Bay Center for the Performing Arts. Pilot grantees were strategically selected to cover different program areas, ensuring that all items from the
youth experience survey would be administered.

Across six evaluation pilot programs, 40 youth
completed the youth experience survey and two
parents completed the parent survey. All six programs completed the grantee survey. WestEd presented pilot results to the RDCY and the RFCY
Oversight Board and made revisions to the participant surveys and the grantee survey based on feedback received.
50 1129
Appendix B.

RFCY Evaluation
Partner
Engagement
WestEd employed a participatory
evaluation approach that
actively engaged those most
affected by the RFCY in the
design and implementation
of the evaluation.7
WestEd learned from community partners, including youth and grantees, through holding listening sessions, codesigning
evaluation instruments, and collectively interpreting findings.

Regular Meetings With
RDCY
WestEd met biweekly with RDCY staff from
July 2023 to June 2025. During these biweekly
meetings, WestEd collaborated on partner
7 Organizing Engagement. (2023). Participatory Action Research and Evaluation. https://organizingengagement.org/models/participatory-action-research-and-evaluation/ engagement and evaluation planning and
implementation.

RFCY Oversight Board
Engagement
WestEd first met with the Oversight Board in
November 2023, facilitating an activity to gauge
members’ interest in deeper collaboration in the
evaluation. Since then, WestEd has actively partnered with board members throughout each stage of the evaluation.

In March 2024, WestEd returned to provide
updates on evaluation planning and community
engagement. During this meeting, board members offered feedback on the RFCY logic model, evaluation questions, and draft items for the
Youth Experience Survey. In June 2024, WestEd
presented the full evaluation plan and received
input on the emerging qualitative data collection
approach. Most recently, in April 2025, WestEd
shared project updates and preliminary findings
and sought recommendations for incorporating
spatial analyses into the final report.

Youth Co-Evaluators
The Youth Co-Evaluators are a group of Richmond
youth, ages 14–20, who contribute their unique
perspectives as participants in school- and community-based programs funded by RFCY. The evaluation plan was initially shaped by a team
of five youth data collectors nominated by RFCYfunded grantees. These youth received training in research and evaluation fundamentals and,
during the evaluation planning phase, helped pilot
the Youth Experience Survey and informed the
approach to analyzing grantee reports. They were
also trained to assist grantees with administering participant surveys.

During the implementation phase, WestEd
recruited additional Youth Co-Evaluators through
a similar nomination and application process.

These 13 youth were onboarded in February
2025 and contributed to the development of this
final report.
51 1130
Appendix C.

Detailed
Description of
Data Collection
Methods
Participant Surveys
The RFCY participant surveys were designed to
assess the extent to which the Fund is fostering
high-quality programming. The survey measures
a range of program-specific outcomes for children and youth who participate in RFCY-funded programs. There are two versions of the survey,
one of which is designed for youth participants
over age 10 and the other for parents of participants age 10 and younger. The participant surveys are available online and on paper in both English
and Spanish.

The youth surveys include a core module composed of 16 items, supplemental modules, and a set of demographic questions. The core module,
as seen in Table 2, measures several topics for all
RFCY-funded program participants. Supplemental
modules are sets of questions that measure
topics aligned with the program type. With this
flexible design, youth experience surveys are
customized to each program based on program
format and goals. For example, programs that
support youth to apply for jobs and manage their
finances administer the employment and life skills
modules, while programs that offer educational
supports administer the academic engagement
module. The specific topics measured by the core
and supplemental modules were informed by listening sessions with grantees, feedback from RDCY and the RFCY Oversight Board, and review
of existing standardized measures of program
quality. The parent survey includes items from
core modules and those supplemental modules
seen in Table 3.

Table 2. Youth Survey Modules
Core Module Supplemental
Modules
• Program
satisfaction
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships
with adults
• Cultural
competency
• Linkage to
resources
• Demographics
• Program
satisfaction
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships
with adults
• Cultural
competency
• Linkage to
resources
• Demographics
Table 3. Parent Survey Modules
Core Module Supplemental
Modules
• Program
satisfaction and
enjoyment
• Sense of belonging
• Program
environment
• Positive
relationships with
adults
• Linkage to
resources
• Motivation for
enrollment
• Demographics
• Building
connections
• Academic
engagement
• Health
All RFCY grantees were invited to administer participant surveys. Survey data were collected in paper and digital formats, in English and Spanish,
during programming time. In total, 22 grantees
(39%) collected at least one survey response.

Of these, only 13 grantees had enough data for
performance monitoring and data featured on
program profiles (10 responses minimum). A
supplemental file lists the programs that administered the youth experience survey during this reporting period and shows which supplemental
modules were administered for each program.
52 1131
Grantee Focus Groups
To understand RFCY implementation, WestEd
conducted six 1-hour virtual focus groups with
33 RFCY-funded program managers and executives. The goal of the focus groups was to learn about the extent to which and how the RFCY is
successfully building the capacity of grantees and
to learn about the successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities and services.

All focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and
coded by WestEd analysts. WestEd conducted a
thematic analysis of focus group data and summarized these findings in this report.

Quarterly Reports
As part of their grant agreement, each RFCY
grantee is required to submit a quarterly progress
report and a final report at the end of the funding year. These reports help WestEd understand more about the implementation of RFCY and the
characteristics of funded programs. The reports
are a key data source for grantees to describe program outcomes and impact, but are subject to reporting bias where grantees might only report
positive outcomes. The reports were systematically analyzed and the findings were summarized in the body of this evaluation report. The progress
reports and final reports were collected by RDCY.

WestEd conducted a content analysis of grantee
reports to address each of the evaluation
questions. Findings from these analyses are summarized throughout this report.

Grantee Survey
WestEd administered a survey to FY 2021–24
grantees to learn more about how RFCY and RDCY
has supported their organizational goals and their
needs for additional support. The survey was
administered to all RFCY grantees in December
2024. There were 37 respondents to the survey,
representing 33 organizations across all six priority
service areas. Overall, the survey had a 75 percent
response rate from grantee organizations funded
by RDCY between FY21 and FY24. Most survey
respondents were program leads/managers (47%),
followed by executive directors (30%) and program
staff (9%). Roles of the remaining respondents
(14%, categorized as “other”) included development manager, director of advancement, county director, and grant administrators.
53 1132
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of Youth Encounters Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness $2,026,335 Bay Area Community Resources – Mental Health and Wellness Classes at Kings Schools (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 $150,000 173 Bay Area Community Resources – Mental Health and Wellness Classes at DeJean-Coronado (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $300,000 $150,000 658 Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. – Youth Matters (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $405,000 $135,000 395 Early Childhood Mental Health Program – Perinatal Circle of Care (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 210
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Early Childhood Mental Health Program (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $85,000 $85,000 73 Mindful Life Project – Mental Health and Wellness Support for Richmond Schools (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $120,000 $60,000 12,355 New Life Movement – Reactions Program (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $200,000 $100,000 313 Seneca Family of Agencies – Unconditional Education School Partnerships (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 4,786 West County Mandarin School PTA – SEL Enrichment
(Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $41,000 $41,000 463
Richmond Community Foundation – Sister Circle (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $125,335 $125,335 49 Education Support and Employment/Training Support $2,128,957 Bridges From School to Work – Bridges from School to Work (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $50,000 $50,000 30
College Is Real – Summer Bridge Program and High School Programming (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $255,000 $85,000 3,616 Appendix D. Funded Programs Priority Area
54 1133
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of Youth Encounters Healthy Contra Costa – Richmond Youth Health Advocacy Pathway (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $96,007 $96,007 38
Improve Your Tomorrow (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $75,000 $75,000 94 Richmond Art Center – Supporting Peoples Outlooks, Talents, and Speech (SPOTS) Mural Program (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $80,000 $40,000 36 Richmond Promise – Health Care Career Connections
(Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $397,950 $132,650 165
Richmond Public Library – Literacy Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 $150,000 2,640 Things That Creep – Neighborhood Snakes (Small and Emerging) FY 2022–23 $60,000 $30,000 1,546 Urban Tilth – Urban Agriculture Academy (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $240,000 $80,000 1,064 Watershed Project – Green Collar Corps Youth Employment Program (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $200,000 $100,000 26 City of Richmond Employment and Training Department –
YouthWORKS – Healthcare Pathways Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $150,000 $150,000 21 City of Richmond Employment and Training Department –
RichmondBUILD (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $375,000 $125,000 180 Out-of-School Time, After School, Sports and Enrichment $3,007,657 ABLE Community Development Foundation – After-school
enrichment club (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $45,707 $45,707 23 Aim High for High School – Aim High Summer Learning Programs for Richmond Middle School Students (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $300,000 $150,000 702 City of Richmond, Community Services – Camp Achieve
(Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $270,000 $90,000 198
City of Richmond, Community Services – Sports and Leadership Program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $61,500 $61,500 220
55 1134
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of Youth Encounters Community Education Partnerships – Educational Services (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $134,700 $134,700 122
DREAM – Financial Literacy Project (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $80,000 $40,000 324 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts – Young Artist Diploma Program (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 990 Easter Hill United Methodist Church – Richmond Freedom School (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $39,000 $39,000 79
Envisioneers Inc. – Academic Curriculum (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $80,000 $80,000 971 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Social Progress Inc (Small and Emerging) FY 2023–24 $15,000 $15,000 200
Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation – Oshi Entrepreneur Club (Small and Emerging) FY 2022–23 $60,000 $30,000 217
Pogo Park – Enrichment Programs at Elm Playlot (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $300,000 $150,000 3,938 Practice Space – Speak Together Be Together (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $200,000 $100,000 832 Rosie the Riveter Trust – Community Liaison (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $172,500 $86,250 1,405
Rosie the Riveter Trust – Rosie Service Corps (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $195,000 $65,000 1,206
RYSE – Integrative Arts Programming (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $225,000 $75,000 2,954 Scientific Adventures for Girls – Afterschool STEM Program at WCCUSD Schools (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $130,000 $65,000 1,908 Watershed Project – Educational Programs (Collaboration) FY 2022–23 $100,000 $50,000 1,433 West County Digs – School Garden Renewal Program (Small and Emerging) FY 2021–22 $136,500 $45,500 1,647
56 1135
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of Youth Encounters Youth Code Now – After School Program (Small and Emerging) FY 2021–22 $162,750 $54,250 507 Youth Violence Prevention $805,300
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County – Speak Up Be Safe (SUBS) and Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP) (Single Agency)
FY 2021–22 $105,000 $35,000 2,027
Community Violence Solutions – H.O.P.E. Services (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $300,000 $100,000 3,715 Fresh Lifelines for Youth – FLY Law-Related Education (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $130,950 $65,475 116
Project Avary – Leadership Program for Children of Incarcerated Parents (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $195,300 $65,100 127 Richmond Police Activities League – Youth Diversion and Development program (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $74,050 $74,050 165 Access to Basic Needs $536,008
18 Reasons – Cooking Matters (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $75,000 $ 25,000 1,373 Fresh Approach – Nutrition Education and Resources (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $136,008 $68,004 322
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Shelter Services
(Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $100,000 $50,000 307
Richmond Promise – Technology Access for First-Generation College Students (Collaboration) FY 2021–22 $225,000 $75,000 225 Information, Guidance, and Case Management $620,000
Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance – Family Justice Center (Single Agency) FY 2021–22 $330,000 $110,000 425
Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau – Wraparound Services (Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $160,000 $80,000 70
57 1136
Program Name First Year of Funding Sum of Total
Funding Received Funding per Year Total Number of Youth Encounters Greater Richmond Interfaith Program – Case Management
(Single Agency) FY 2022–23 $40,000 $20,000 116
Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services – High School to Homeownership (Collaboration) FY 2023–24 $60,000 $60,000 45 Youth Finance Institute of America – Youth Finance Institute of America (Single Agency) FY 2023–24 $30,000 $30,000 842
Grand Total $9,124,257 58,682
58 1137
Appendix E. List of Program Sites
Site Funded Organizations
Office- 6215 Bernard Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Project Avary Alvarado Park- 5755 McBryde Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Watershed Project Aspire Richmond Ca. College Preparatory Academy- 3040 Hilltop Mall Rd, Richmond, CA 94806 Mindful Life Project Aspire Richmond Technology Academy- 3170 Hilltop Mall Rd, Richmond, CA 94806 Mindful Life Project Healthy Contra Costa
Bay Area Rescue Mission- 200 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Community Education Partnerships Bayview Branch Library- 5100 Harnett Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Public Library Berkeley City College- 2050 Center St, Berkeley, CA 94704 Healthy Contra Costa Betty Reid Soskin Middle School- 1121 Allview Ave, El Sobrante, CA 94803 Community Violence Solutions
Envisioneers
Rosie the Riveter Trust
Booker T Anderson Community Center- 960 S 47th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project Caliber: Beta Academy- 4301 Berk Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project Cerrito Creek- Albany, CA 94530 Urban Tilth
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary - 960 17th St., Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Community Violence Solutions
Mindful Life Project
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Youth Code Now
Challenge Sonoma Adventure Ropes Course- Orchard Road, Eldridge, CA 95431 Project Avary City of Richmond- 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Promise City of Richmond Employment and Training Department- 330 25th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 City of Richmond Employment and Training Department
59 1138
Site Funded Organizations
City of Richmond Recreation Complex- 1410 Kelsey St, Richmond, CA 94804 Camp Achieve
Richmond Public Library
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Clem Miller Environmental Education Center- 1 Bear Valley Road, Pt. Reyes Station, CA 94956 Project Avary CoBiz/La Familia- 1503 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond Community Foundation Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Codornices Creek- Albany, CA 94708 Urban Tilth
Contra Costa College- 2600 Mission Bell Drive, San Pablo, CA 94806 Healthy Contra Costa Contra Costa County San Pablo WIC- 501 Gateway Ave, San Pablo, CA 94806 Fresh Approach Contra Costa Juvenile Hall- 202 Glacier Dr, Martinez, CA 94553 Fresh Lifelines for Youth Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau- 186 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau- 84 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau Coronado Elementary School- 2100 Main Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Things that Creep
Youth Code Now
De Anza High School- 5000 Valley View Rd, Richmond, CA 94803 College is Real
Community Violence Solutions
Improve your tomorrow
New Life
Richmond Promise
Dover Elementary School- 1870 19th St, San Pablo, CA 94806 Community Violence Solutions Practice Space
Early Childhood Mental Health Program- 200 24th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program
East Bay Center for the Performing Arts Winters Building- 339 11th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts 60 1139
Site Funded Organizations
Easter Hill United Methodist Church- 3911 Cutting Blvd, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Freedom School Edward M. Downer Elementary- 1231 18th St, San Pablo, CA 94806 18 Reasons
Community Violence Solutions
Scientific Adventures for Girls
El Cerrito High School- 540 Ashbury Ave, El Cerrito, CA 94530 Richmond Promise Elm Playlot- 720 Elm Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Pogo Park
Ford Elementary School- 2711 Maricopa Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Community Violence Solutions
Project Avary
Seneca Family of Agencies
Golden Gate Community School- 2200 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Fresh Lifelines for Youth Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Grant Elementary School- 2400 Downer Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project
New Life Movement
Practice Space
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Seneca Family of Agencies
Things that Creep
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program- 165 22nd Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Greenway Edible Forest- Ohio Ave & 16th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth Greenwood Academy- 831 Chanslor Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Rosie the Riveter Trust
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Health Career Connections- 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612 Richmond Promise Healthy Contra Costa- 1015 Nevin Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801 Healthy Contra Costa Helms Middle School- 2500 Rd 20, San Pablo, CA 94806
18 Reasons
Community Violence Solutions
Envisioneers
61 1140
Site Funded Organizations
Highland Elementary School- 2829 Moyers Rd., Richmond, CA 94806 Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County
Home office- 926 Pomona Ave, Albany, CA 94706 Youth Finance Institute of America Jewish Vocational Services- 1 Post St, San Francisco, CA 94104 Healthy Contra Costa John F. Kennedy High School- 4300 Cutting Blvd., Richmond, CA 94804 College is Real
Community Violence Solutions
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Improve your tomorrow
New Life Movement
Richmond Promise
Kaiser Permanente School of Allied Health- 938 Marina Way, Richmond, CA 94804 Healthy Contra Costa Lake Elementary School- 2700 11th St, San Pablo, CA 94806 Youth Code Now Leadership Public Schools: Richmond- 880 Bissell Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Community Violence Solutions Lincoln Elementary School- 29 6th St, Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Youth Code Now 3
Lovonya DeJean Middle- 3400 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 ABLE Community Development Foundation
Bay Area Community Resources Area
Community Violence Solutions
Desarrollo Familiar Area
New Life Movement
Main Library- 325 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Public Library Martin Griffin Preserve- 4900 Shoreline Hwy, Stinson Beach, CA 94924 Project Avary Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School- 4022 Florida Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources
Practice Space
Project Avary
Things that Creep
Youth Code Now
Martinez Adult School- 600 F Street, Martinez, CA 94553 Healthy Contra Costa 62 1141
Site Funded Organizations
May Valley Community Center- 3530 Morningside Drive, Richmond, CA 94803 Richmond Public Library Men & Women of Valor- 1350 Kelsey Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Social Progress Inc Michelle Obama Elementary School- 629 42nd St, Richmond, CA 94805 Practice Space
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Things that Creep
Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline- 900 Dornan Dr, Richmond, CA 94801 Watershed Project Mira Vista Elementary- 6397 Hazel Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Practice Space
Things that Creep
West County Digs
Montalvin Manor - 300 Christine Dr., San Pablo, CA 94806 Aim High Watershed Project
Mt. Diablo Adult School - 1266 San Carlos Ave, Concord, CA 94518 Healthy Contra Costa Multicultural Bookstore- 260 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau DREAM Financial
Murphy Elementary- 4350 Valley View Rd, El Sobrante, CA 94803 Scientific Adventures for Girls Things that Creep
Natura Institute for Ecology & Medicine at Commonwealth Garden- 480 Mesa Road, Bolinas, CA 94924 Project Avary Nevin Community Center- 598 Nevin Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Camp Achieve NLM Resource Center- 322 Harbour Way, Richmond, CA 94801 New Life Movement Nystrom Elementary School- 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Things that Creep
Watershed Project
Youth Code Now
OARS West Inc - 7330 River Park Drive, Lotus, CA 95651 Project Avary Olinda Elementary School- 5855 Olinda Rd, Richmond, CA 94803 Things that Creep
Watershed Project
Youth Code Now
63 1142
Site Funded Organizations
Parchester Community Center- 900 Williams Dr, Richmond, CA 94806 Camp Achieve Peres Elementary School- 719 5th St, Richmond, CA 94801 Community Violence Solutions
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Youth Code Now
Performing Stars- 271 Drake Ave., Marin City, Ca 94565, Marin City, CA 94565 DREAM Financial Pinole Middle School- 1575 Mann Dr., Pinole, CA 94564 Watershed Project Point Pinole Regional Shoreline- 5551 Giant Hwy, Richmond, CA 94806 Watershed Project RCF Connects- 3260 Blume Dr, Richmond, CA 94806 Richmond Community Foundation Reach Out Mode Center- 435 Valley View Rd, El Sobrante, CA 94803 Oshiana Unique Thompkins Foundation Richmond Art Center- 2540 Barrett Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Art Center Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Richmond Charter Elementary-Benito Juarez- 1450 Marina Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project Richmond City Center- 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Promise Fresh Approach
Richmond College Prep- 1014 Florida Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project Rosie the Riveter Trust
Richmond High School- 1250 23rd Street, Richmond, CA 94804 18 Reasons
College is Real
Community Violence Solutions
Desarrollo Familiar
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Richmond Promise
Urban Tilth
Watershed Project
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Richmond Maritime Child Development Center- 1014 Florida Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Rosie the Riveter Trust Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services- 12972 San Pablo Ave, Richmond, CA 94805 Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services 64 1143
Site Funded Organizations
Richmond Police Activities League- 2200 Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 DREAM Financial Richmond Police Activities League
Riverside Elementary School- 1300 Amador St, San Pablo, CA 94806 18 Reasons Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park Visitor Center- 1414 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Rosie the Riveter Trust RYSE Youth Center- 3939 Bissell Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 RYSE
Richmond Community Foundation
Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Early Childhood Mental Health Program
Fresh Approach
Sanbox Experience- 5614 Bay St, Emeryville, CA 94608 OUT Foundation SAP Site #1: North Richmond Farm- 323 Brookside Drive, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth SAP Site #3: Greenway Community Gardens- Ohio Ave & 6th Street, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth SAP Site #4: Wildcat Creek Trail- Watershed Fred Jackson Way & Parr Blvd, Richmond, CA 94801 Urban Tilth Sea Trek Kayak & StandUp Paddle Board Center- 2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965 Project Avary Sheldon Elementary- 2601 May Rd, Richmond, CA 94803 Scientific Adventures for Girls Shields-Reid Community Center- 1410 Kelsey St, Richmond, CA 94801 Camp Achieve
Community Violence Solutions
Richmond Public Library
Shimada Friendship Park- 79 Harbor View Dr, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project SparkPoint Richmond- 1000-C Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond Community Foundation SparkPoint Richmond- 1000-C Macdonald Ave, Richmond, CA 94801 Healthy Contra Costa St. Dorothy's Rest- 160 St. Dorothy Ave, Camp Meeker, CA 95419 Project Avary 65 1144
Site Funded Organizations
Stege Elementary School // West County Reads Educators' Book Depot- 4949 Cypress Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources
Practice Space
Seneca Family of Agencies
Things that Creep
West Contra Costa Family Justice Center
Stinson Beach- 3514 Shoreline Hwy, Stinson Becah, CA 94970 Tara Hills Elementary- 2300 Dolan Way, San Pablo, CA 94806 Practice Space Scientific Adventures for Girls
Tech Exchange- 2530 International Blvd, Oakland, CA 94601 Richmond Promise Tech Exchange Warehouse- 2201 Poplar Street, Oakland, CA 94607 Richmond Promise The Watershed Project office- 1327 S. 46th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project Tilden Park- 740 Wildcat Canyon Rd, Berkeley, CA 94708 Urban Tilth Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley- 1 Lawson Rd, Kensington, CA 94707 Project Avary Unity Park Richmond Greenway- 1605 Ohio Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Watershed Project Veggie Rx program outreach- 24 Barrett Ave, Richmond, CA 94804 Fresh Approach Verde Elementary School- 2000 Giaramita St, Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Community Violence Solutions
Practice Space
Things that Creep
Watershed Project
Youth Code Now
Vista Virtual Elementary- 2625 Barnard St , San Pablo, CA 94806 Things that Creep Voices College-Bound Language Academy at West Contra Costa County- 201 28th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Community Violence Solutions Washington Elementary- 565 Wine St, Richmond, CA 94801
Scientific Adventures for Girls
Watershed Project
Things that Creep
66 1145
Site Funded Organizations
West Contra Costa Family Justice Center- 256 24th St, Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance West County Clinic- 13601 San Pablo Ave, San Pablo, CA 94806 Early Childhood Mental Health Program West County Mandarin School- 1575 Mann Dr, Pinole, CA 94564 West County Mandarin School PTA West Side Branch Library- 135 Washington Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond Public Library Workspace- 344 20th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 Bridges from School to Work 67 1146
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
FY 2021–24 Evaluation Findings
Prepared for Richmond City Council
1147
Introduction
Key Achievements
Looking Forward
Agenda
1148
Introduction
1149
RFCY Theory of Change
1150
Evaluation Methods
1151
Evaluation Results
1152
Summary of the RFCY
Over 9 million dollars
went to organizations
serving Richmond
children, youth, and
families.
1153
RFCY at a Glance
1154
Funding Areas
“[RFCY is the] kind of funding that … has been creative in addressing an issue that [is] usually something that is a second thought to all the other services, and it’s specific for youth. It’s been really empowering for our kids to hear that this money is for them and about them.”
—Resource Development Administrator 1155
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Practice Space, Youth Code Now, Scientific Adventures for Girls, Community Education Partnerships, RYSE 1156 Funding Areas
Featured photos: Watershed Project Green Collar
Corps, Things That Creep, Richmond YouthWORKS 1157
Funding Areas
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emotions
and know that they’re
in my control."
—Desarrollo Familiar
participant, age 16
1158
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, Fresh Lifelines for Youth
“R-pal is a great
program for the
community.”
—Richmond Police
Activities League
participant, age 18
1159
Funding Areas
1160
10/14/2025 15
Over FY 2021–24, there were over 120
program sites.
“We work in schools
and with afterschool
programs, but we
also work at housing
sites, clinics,
community centers.

So we’re really
reaching youth in a
lot of different
settings.”
—Program Director
1161
10/14/2025 16
RFCY grantees had over 58,000
encounters with children and youth.
1162
10/14/2025 17
Grantees served a racially and ethnically
diverse population of children and youth.
“We have bilingual (SpanishEnglish, some Arabic) Youth Peer Support staff to support in
authentic youth engagement and
program leadership, especially to
help address the language barriers
present in the community.”
—Grantee report
1163
10/14/2025 18
RFCY is serving communities with the
highest needs.
“It feels a lot
better to know
we’re embedded in
our community,
not just in the kids
and the staff, but
also the funding.”
—Vice President of
Programs
1164
10/14/2025 19
Program sites are accessible because
they are at schools or alongside
transit routes.

Funded programs
took place at 44
K–12 schools and
served over 43,000
children and
youth.
1165
10/14/2025 20
Participants had positive experiences in
RFCY-funded programs.
“This program really
pushes me and
encourages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for the
Performing Arts participant,
age 16
“I liked this experience
because it helped me with
talking more and being
more comfortable.”
—Rosie’s Service Corps
participant, age 13
1166
10/14/2025 21
• Grants are a catalyst for collaboration.
• RFCY helped emerging programs grow
their organizational infrastructures.

Capacity
• Multiyear RFCY funding supported
grantees’ fiscal planning and growth.
• Grantees pursued additional funding
sources to support sustainability.

Fiscal health
and
sustainability
RFCY supports grantees’ organizational
capacity and sustainability.
$1,581,457
administered to nine
collaborative programs
$559,957
administered to eight
small and emerging
programs
“When we tell people from different companies, ‘Hey, we’ve got the support of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth,’ that helps us. That’s a big deal because they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, the city is actually supporting this program.’ So that not just legitimizes it, but it makes them feel stronger about supporting us.” —Executive Director
1167
Widespread Reach
Equity-Focused Implementation
Accessible Services
Positive Youth Experience
Support for Organizations
Summary of Key Achievements
1168
Recommendations
Prioritize Flexible Funding
Support Capacity Building for Program Quality
Promote Long-Term Sustainability Planning
Enhance Communication and Responsiveness
Increase Access Supports and Promote Attendance
Strengthen School and Community Partnerships
Deepen Youth and Community Voice
1169
2025
Evaluation
Report
2026
Evaluation
Report
City Council
reauthorization
vote
by December 31, 2027
(Richmond Charter,
Article XV Sec. 11)
2027
Evaluation
Report
FY 2025–28
Evaluation
Report
What’s Next?
36 programs are funded for FY 2025–28
Longitudinal evaluation data will highlight the impact of investing in children and youth over time. 1170
Alexis Grant
[email protected]
Questions?
Nicole Tirado-Strayer
[email protected]
1171

DRAFT Response to Community Member Questions
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
1 The Richmond Kids First program was funded by ballot measures E & K.

Since Jan 1, 2017, these ballot measures guaranteed Richmond taxpayer dollars be set aside for 10 years, irrespective of the City’s financial status:
•$950K from Jan 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018
•1% of City revenues from GF in FY 2018-19 (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) •2% of City revenues from GF in FY 2019-20 (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020) •3% of City revenues from GF in FY 2020-21 through FY 2026-27 (July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2027).

As a good example, for the Chevron Polluters Tax Measure Settlement Year 1 payment of $50M in FY 2025-26, the Kids First program received $1.5M (3%).

Before the end of the initial ten-year period, the Fund’s outcomes are also to be evaluated for renewal or revision.

The City will presumably put a new measure on the ballot to renew this endeavor, but it’s unclear when this will happen — i.e., Nov 2026 or June 2028 primary when fewer people vote.

While many believe this funding & program is valuable for Richmond’s youth, that does not mean the program should not have been properly audited in real time from the outset or that outcomes shouldn’t be evaluated before the 10-year period ended.

Measures E and K legally require the City to allocate Kids First funding for ten years beginning in 2017, including the 3% set-aside that applies to major revenue sources such as the Chevron settlement. These allocations have been made in accordance with the Charter Article 15-Kids First.

Article 15 Section 7.d.5 establishes and outlines in detail the Oversight Board's responsibility for reviewing financial reports and audits. To support this oversight, RDCY enforces rigorous fiscal controls. Grantees must submit receipts and full backup documentation for all expenditures. RDCY does not reimburse any cost that is inconsistent with approved budgets or program activities. Staff conduct detailed verification of payroll records, timesheets, receipts, bank statements, invoices, and cancelled checks, ensuring documentation is reconciled with precision before any payment is released.

RDCY also initiated external program evaluation in 2023—well before the end of the 10-year period—resulting in the first public evaluation report following the formal acceptance of the Report by the City Council. WestEd will publish additional annual evaluations in 2026, 2027, and 2028, along with a comprehensive 10-year impact report.

The City already upholds strong fiscal oversight practices, including independent annual audits of the General Fund. Building on this foundation, and to reinforce accountability under Article XV, the City will direct Badawi & Associates—or another qualified auditing firm—to conduct a dedicated audit of RFCY funds. This additional verification layer will supplement existing internal controls and help inform future decisions regarding renewal of the Kids First program.
2 Discrepancy between the city website map and the maps in the evaluation report.

Since 2021, the report states on page 1 that over $9.1M of Richmond taxpayer money has been granted to 46 organizations.

On the City’s website, they have a map of grant awardees.

Article 15 of the City Charter requires that funded organizations be based in Richmond or in close proximity to Richmond. The Charter does not define “close proximity,” and no formal guidance was established when the program was created. To ensure consistency, transparency, and fairness in implementation, staff developed an operational definition of within 15-mile radius of the City of Richmond, City Hall Building. This standard has been applied uniformly since the start of regular grantmaking. 1172

# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
•The map is incomplete.
•One program is in Oakland.
•A previous version of this map showed awardees on the SF Peninsula as well as in Antioch or Concord, if I remember correctly.

Since these locations are no longer shown on the map, I can no longer tell you what those programs were or their exact location.

It is important to note that while some organizations have administrative offices located in nearby cities such as Oakland or other parts of the region, they deliver services directly to Richmond children, youth, and families, often at school sites, community centers, or partner facilities within city limits. Many regional service providers operate from a centralized administrative hub yet maintain active programming in Richmond. This model is common in the youth-serving nonprofit sector and aligns with both Article XV and the program’s strategic goals.

With regard to the provider map posted on the City’s website:
• City staff acknowledge that the current map does not display every funded provider and is in the process of being updated for accuracy and completeness. • Past versions may have included organizations whose administrative addresses are outside Richmond, consistent with the 15-mile proximity definition and the Charter’s requirements.
• As updates were made to the map and website, some entries may have been removed or reformatted, and staff is reviewing these changes to ensure all active grantees are correctly represented.

Regardless of the administrative address shown on a map (Appendix D), all funded organizations meet the City Charter’s Article XV requirement of being located in Richmond or in close proximity, and all provide documented services to Richmond youth. Staff remains committed to improving the clarity and transparency of the online tools, including ensuring that the map will be revised to accurately reflect all organizations funded since the program began.
3 Trusting the data reported by funded organizations
Someone affiliated with the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board shared the following with me:

Accuracy and accountability in participant data and financial reporting are crucial for program and contract compliance, evaluation, resource allocation, and building and maintaining trust among all stakeholders. Regarding the referenced statements, City staff have received no formal or informal feedback of this type, nor is there a record of RCYF staff making statements in this vein. It is difficult to respond to claims that are not attributed to a specific 1173

# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
They aren't sure how City Staff is auditing the data & money to ensure that the information reported by the funded organizations is correct regarding whether the participants are Richmond residents or not.

Someone affiliated with the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board shared the following with me:

City Staff was asked how they were verifying the numbers that the organizations were reporting, and they said that they were taking the numbers at face value because there was no way to verify them at this point. Once they have the new computer system which will allegedly start with the new grant cycle in January they “should" be able to do a better job of verifying numbers.
individual, and the description provided does not reflect our actual practices or legal constraints.

Due to legal and ethical constraints, the City cannot access client tracking systems. • Many RFCY grantees provide mental health, educational, and supportive services that involve information covered under HIPAA, FERPA, and privacy laws protecting minors. • City staff cannot and should not access client-level information or identifiable participant records. This is standard practice across youth-serving funding models statewide.

RFCY, WestEd, and our grantees follow widely accepted nonprofit evaluation and grant administration standards, which do not include direct review of identifiable personal data.

While RDCY cannot legally access confidential client databases, City staff do require extensive documentation and cross-checking for financial and programmatic accuracy. • Grantees submit receipts, payroll records, timesheets, bank statements, invoices, and canceled checks, all of which are reviewed with exact accuracy before reimbursements are issued.
• Program performance is evaluated by comparing proposed numbers served with actual reported numbers, as part of quarterly reporting and annual evaluations. • Grantees have consistently been transparent in reporting recruitment challenges or fluctuations in enrollment.

WestEd, RFCY’s external evaluator, began supporting RFCY in 2023. Their contract includes technical assistance to improve data quality across all funded organizations. • WestEd has developed standardized templates and guidance to help grantees track participant data more accurately and consistently.
1174

# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
• Neither WestEd nor the City collects identifiable personal information; instead, organizations track that information internally using the templates. • This is a best practice in youth evaluation, balancing accuracy with privacy protections.

The new grants management software will improve efficiency, consistency, and the structure of reporting, but it will not override legal restrictions on collecting confidential participant data. Instead, it will help standardize data entry and documentation across all grantees, reducing errors and increasing transparency.

RFCY uses industry-standard verification processes, detailed fiscal reviews, and external evaluation to ensure data accuracy and compliance The totality of these rigorous practices are consistent with the established professional procedures and ways of working of RDCY, WestEd, and the Oversight Board.
4 Concern about funding programs not for Richmond Residents.

Can City Staff provide audited numbers ensuring how Richmond taxpayer dollars were spent on Richmond youth for program awardees both inside and outside Richmond.

And just because a program has a Richmond address, that does not mean that program does not also provide services to non-Richmond residents.

How do Richmond taxpayers know that their funds were directed to Richmond participants? Are we just supposed to take someone’s word for it? The public is aware that some Richmond kids go to schools outside of Richmond.

However, those programs should be audited and have to account for how Richmond taxpayer dollars from RFCY were spent towards Richmond youth and said program.

For example, if a school program has 20 unique participants, but only 1 is from Richmond, then the program’s funding from RFCY should similarly reflect that % participation.

How has this been audited? Where is the data?
City staff cannot “audit” participant addresses in the way suggested due to privacy and legal reasons.
• Many grantees provide mental health, educational, and case management services that involve data protected under HIPAA, FERPA, and privacy laws governing minors. • The City cannot legally access or store participant addresses or other personally identifiable information.
• This is not unique to RFCY—it is standard practice for youth-serving funds across California.

Grantees are contractually required to report only participants who are Richmond residents when submitting performance numbers to RFCY.
• Organizations serving youth in nearby cities (e.g., San Pablo, El Cerrito, Oakland, or unincorporated areas) must exclude non-Richmond participants from RFCY reporting and reimbursement.
1175

# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
---
City of residence (not just zip code) of each unique participant:
o For example, if there were 10 participants, how many reside in Richmond, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole, El Cerrito, etc.
o The home zip code map of participants on page 8 is very misleading.  Many zip codes (e.g., 94803, 94805 and 94806) include not only Richmond but San Pablo and El Sobrante.

The map on page 8 (screenshot attached) also shows participants residing in what appears to be Pinole and El Cerrito.
---
How many participants in each funded program, and each year, were not actually from Richmond?
It’s a great thing if Richmond youth are participating in more than one program. What is important to track and understand is how many non-Richmond youth are being supported by Richmond taxpayer dollars as opposed to their own city, county and/or WCCUSD funds.
---
How are RFCY-funded programs audited and accounted for based on city of residence of each participating youth?
• This requirement is reinforced in contracts, technical assistance, quarterly reporting, and staff monitoring.

The suggestion that services provided outside Richmond automatically mean funds are misallocated is inaccurate. Richmond youth routinely receive services across jurisdictional boundaries — especially in East Bay communities where families live, work, and attend school across city lines.

While we cannot legally access personal client databases, we do audit how funds are used:
• Every reimbursement request is supported by receipts, payroll records, timesheets, bank statements, invoices, and cancelled checks.
• Documentation is reviewed and reconciled to the penny. • Costs that do not align with approved budgets, program scopes, or the requirement to serve Richmond youth are not reimbursed.

RFCY recognizes that Richmond youth and their families access services both within the city and in nearby communities, and that Richmond-based organizations often serve young people from Richmond and adjacent areas. However, our guidelines, meetings, and contracts clearly state—and grantees acknowledge—that RFCY funds may be used only to support Richmond youth, regardless of where services are delivered or accessed.

To ensure equitable access and reduce administrative burden on community partners, RFCY permits multiple forms of youth residency verification for grant-funded programs. Agencies are not required to collect client-level documentation or invest in new software systems.

Acceptable verification methods include self-attestation; confirmation of local school enrollment; referral from a community partner; reliance on program location for neighborhood-based services; non-sensitive geographic indicators; or staff-verified notes based on participant conversation. These methods are considered equally valid, and programs may choose whichever approach aligns with their capacity and the needs of the populations they serve.
1176

# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
5 Can City Staff provide audited numbers from each grant recipient/awardee as to how dollars were spent each year?
It is also my understanding that this $9.1M has not been appropriately audited.

Yes. City staff conduct line-item reviews of how every grant recipient spends RFCY funds each year. Grantees must submit full financial documentation—including payroll records, timesheets, receipts, invoices, bank statements, and cancelled checks—and reimbursements are only issued after staff verify that every cost aligns with the approved budget and directly supports Richmond youth. All expenditures are reconciled with precision and costs that do not comply with program requirements or Article XV are not reimbursed. This process provides an audited accounting of how RFCY dollars are spent annually. 6 The report states on page 6, “Each subsequent year, RDCY [sic] renewed grant agreements with existing grantees and awarded new grants to additional programs. Annual grantee awards ranged from $15,000 to $150,000.” • What was the basis for renewal?
• How was the data audited for renewal?
• What were the metrics used for success and failure?
Per the attached screenshot of Page 3 from the report outlining the six goals of RFCY, do you agree with any metrics used to determine success and failure? Renewal decisions were based on formal criteria established in the Charter (Article XV, adopted by Richmond voters in June 2018), which sets forth program goals and the overarching standards for RFCY-funded services. Grantees eligible for renewal were required to meet all contractual obligations related to service delivery, quarterly reporting, and financial compliance; remain in good standing with the California Department of Justice, Secretary of State, and U.S. Treasury; and submit documentation that allowed staff to review performance metrics, budget execution, and alignment with the Charter goals.

Staff conducted detailed fiscal and programmatic reviews, including verification of expenditures and comparison of proposed versus actual outputs, and forwarded renewal recommendations to the Oversight Board. The Oversight Board evaluated these materials and issued formal recommendations to City Council through Resolution Nos. 149-22 and 57-

23. 7 Youth Encounters vs. Unique Numbers Served
City Staff has not been tracking the actual number of unique youth participants per program per year but rather “youth encounters”.

Per page 3 of the Agenda Report, Youth Encounters are defined as: "“Encounters” represent the number of youth served per quarter and may include duplicate counts for participants engaged in multiple programs or across multiple quarters. With approximately 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, these figures reflect repeat participation rather than unique individuals served."
A robust system would be required to track individual participants across the city. This would require the collection of personally identifiable information from all program participants to be able to count individual encounters across sites.

There are also concerns with collecting this information from grantees who are working with schools and in healthcare spaces, as policies such as HIPAA and FERPA provide barriers to collecting and storing this information particularly from schools and healthcare organizations (as would be mental health services funded by the organizations).

Beginning in 2025, evaluation methods will transition to unduplicated participant counts per grantee across the full program year. While this approach will not eliminate the possibility of 1177

# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
---
Someone affiliated with the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board shared the following with me:

Originally City Staff were calling them participants. However, based on the data they had received, City Staff was informed that the number of supposed participants was far more than the number of actual youth in Richmond. So City Staff realized that some of the supposed participants are probably participating in more than one program and decided to call them youth encounters instead of participants.

My questions and comments in response to this:

Does this truly justify this type of accounting? If so, why? double counting individuals who participate in multiple programs, it will provide a more accurate representation of the number of Richmond youth served by each organization. 8 Appendix D represents the sum of total funding received instead of on a yearly basis. Can City Staff provide an audited breakdown of:
• Funds awarded per year per grant awardee program;
• Location (city & zip code) of each grant awarded program; • Number of unique youth participants per year per grant program, not just “youth encounters”; and
• City of residence for each unique youth participant per year per grant awardee program?
Appendix D has been edited to add funds per grant year and list sites represented on maps.

See response(s) above regarding limitations providing unique youth participants. Collecting City of residence would require the City to collect and maintain the address of participants.

See above comment that grantees are only asked to report only for participants who are Richmond residents.
9 List of School sites
Moreover, several schools listed on page 12 of the report (screenshot attached) are not in Richmond or have a significant % of students who don’t reside in Richmond:
• WCCUSD map of all school locations
• San Pablo: Dover, Downer, Helms, Lake, Montalvin Manor, Riverside & Tara Hills Elementary Schools — 7 schools in San Pablo, not Richmond.

One point of clarification is that no funds go directly to schools. Grantees partner with schools, and all grantees are required to submit official documentation of school partnerships prior to receiving funding. Regardless of the number of participating Richmond children and youth at each site, these sites are represented on the map, including schools not located within the Richmond boundary (see language above regarding location requirements for grantees).
1178

# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
• Murphy, Olinda, Sheldon and Valley View Elementary Schools as well as De Anza High School may have a significant number of kids from El Sobrante. • What % of RFCY-funded programs in these schools are funded by WCCUSD vs.

County?
Questions about specific school names
• Betty Reid Soskin Middle School and Juan Crespi Middle School are the same school. Juan Crespi Middle School was officially renamed Betty Reid Soskin Middle School in 2021.
• Caliber Upper School
• Vista Virtual Elementary School
• Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School
• Leadership High School
WCCUSD is one school district that hosts RFCY programming at various school sites. Schools listed also include charter, private, and technical schools.

Tracking grantees’ other funding sources is outside the scope of the evaluation. However, as noted on page 37 of the report, we know that RFCY funds made up less than 10% of program budgets for the majority of grantees.

Reporting prior to WestEd’s contract did not include number of participants per site.

However, 2025 revisions to the evaluation requires grantees to report number of grantees per program site to identify how many students are served by a program for each school with which they collaborate.

Name of schools will be updated in the report to reflect California Department of Education names.
• The duplication of Juan Crespi Middle School and Betty Reid Soskin Middle School is due to grantees reporting school names interchangeably during the transition • Caliber: Beta Academy - Correct, this school is not a part of WCCUSD. It has since moved locations, but in 2021 was located 4301 Berk Ave., Richmond, CA 94804. This is where activities took place and is represented on the maps in the report. • Vista Virtual Academy is a fully online program and is not represented on maps included in the report.
• King Elementary School noted in the comment is a WCCUSD school with the address of 4022 Florida Ave. Richmond, CA 94804-3398. California Department Education (CDE) Title Name is “Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School” • Leadership Public Schools is the school referenced in the report, located at 880 Bissell Ave Richmond, CA 94801.
1179

December 16, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Direction to Establish a Sister City Commission and Draft Bylaws
FINANCIAL IMPACT: An undetermined amount of staff time will be required.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

August 25, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On August 25, 2025, the City Council approved
establishing a sister-city relationship with Sebastia,
Nablus. As a next step, the Mayor’s Office is requesting that the City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance creating a Sister City Commission and developing its
bylaws.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT staff to work with the Mayor’s Office to establish a Sister City Commission and develop its bylaws through an ordinance - Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez
510-620-5303).

AGENDA
REPORT
1180

December 16, 2025
DISCUSSION:

Sister City relationships function well with a clear set of rules and regulations by which they operate.

When the City Council approved the sister-city relationship with Sebastia, it created a need for a formal structure to manage and sustain that partnership. Sister City programs work best when there is a clear body responsible for planning exchanges, coordinating community participation, and maintaining communication with the partner city. A commission provides that structure.

Establishing a Sister City Commission through ordinance ensures the work is transparent, and consistent. The commission’s bylaws will define membership, responsibilities, decision-making procedures, and expectations for public accountability.

This is especially important for long-term international relationships, where leadership and community participation may change over time.

Creating this commission and its bylaws will allow the City to manage current and future sister-city partnerships in an organized and equitable way. It will also give residents, community groups, and stakeholders a clear role in supporting cultural, educational, and economic exchanges with Sebastia and any future partner cities.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - Agenda Item Establishing Richmond-Sebastia Sister City Relationship Attachment 2 - Resolution Establishing Sister City Relationship With Sebastia, Palestine 1181

August 26, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: August 26, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Eduardo Martinez, Councilmember Claudia
Jimenez, Councilmember Soheila Bana
Subject: Establishing a Sister City Program Between Richmond and the City of Sebastia, Palestine
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Immediate financial impact is expected to be minimal, primarily limited to staff support. Additional costs, if any, will be identified and reported to Council as the
commission develops.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

July 1, 2008 (Resolution No. 74-08 establishing the
Zhoushan Sister City Commission)
Sept. 14, 1999 (Resolution No. 147-99 establishing a
Sister City relationship with Regla, Cuba)
February 8, 1993 (Resolution No. 22-93 establishing a
Sister City relationship with Zhoushan, China)
February 10, 1964 (Resolution 8337 establishing the
Richmond-Shimada Friendship Commission)
Oct. 16, 1961 (Council Vote establishing a Sister City
relationship with Shimada, Japan)

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Richmond’s tradition of international solidarity through sister city relationships can be strengthened by
establishing a new partnership with Sebastia, Palestine.

AGENDA
REPORT
1182

August 26, 2025
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution establishing a Sister City relationship between the City of Richmond, California,
and Sebastia, Palestine —Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-
620-6502); Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-
6565); and Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-
6743).

DISCUSSION:

The Sister Cities International program was founded in 1956 to promote peace and mutual understanding through community-level diplomacy. Richmond has participated in this program for over six decades, beginning with its 1961 council vote to establish a sister city relationship with Shimada, Japan. Subsequent relationships were established with Zhoushan, China, in 1993 (Resolution No. 22-93) and Regla, Cuba, in 1999 (Resolution No. 147-99). These partnerships have facilitated cultural, educational, and economic exchanges that enrich Richmond residents and strengthen global ties.

Sebastia is an ancient town located north of Nablus in the West Bank of Palestine.

Situated on a hilltop, Sebastia is one of the most historically significant archaeological sites in the region, with continuous habitation from the Canaanite era through the Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, and Ottoman periods to the present day. Its residents maintain a vibrant cultural identity rooted in resilience, community, and historic preservation.

As of early 2025, 147 of the 193 United Nations member states recognize the State of Palestine, representing over 75 percent of the international community. The United States, however, does not. By establishing a sister city relationship with Sebastia, Richmond would demonstrate local leadership in diplomacy, solidarity, and cultural exchange at a time when such connections are needed globally.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 –Resolution of the Council of the City of Richmond, California in Support of Establishing a Sister City Program With the City of Sebastia, Palestine 1183
1184
1185

December 16, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Recreations and Parks Commission Appointment
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Jake Goldman Rogers is applying for the Richmond
Recreation and Parks Commission. Jake will be filling a term that was formerly vacated, thus he would be filling an unexpired ter.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT Jake Goldman Rogers to fill an unexpired term on the Richmond Recreation and Parks Commission,
with the term ending on October 26, 2026 - Mayor’s
Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503) .

DISCUSSION:

As a father of young children, Jake is an avid park-goer who experiences firsthand how essential local parks are for families and the broader community. Jake recognizes that AGENDA
REPORT
1186

December 16, 2025
public spaces provide safe, healthy, and engaging environments where children can learn, play, and connect with one another.

In addition to being a regular user of the parks, Jake also volunteers as a coach for Richmond Baseball Little League, where the league relies heavily on local parks as safe and welcoming places for kids to play, grow, and build confidence. Jake expressed how development of these young athletes—both physically and socially—is directly supported by the quality and accessibility of these community spaces.

For these reasons, Jake is recommended to join the Recreation and Parks Commission to work with other like minded and passionate Commissioner.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Redacted application for Jake Goldman Rogers 1187
1188

December 16, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Appointment of May Cooper to the Workforce
Development Board
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

May Cooper is applying to serve on the Workforce
Development Board
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT May Cooper to the Workforce Development Board with a term that expires on March 1, 2029 –
Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

May Cooper is a qualified and dedicated professional whose experience and leadership make her a great addition to the Workforce Development Board. She has a strong AGENDA
REPORT
1189

December 16, 2025
record of advancing workforce initiatives that connect employers, educators, and job seekers.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Redacted application for May Cooper
1190
1191

December 16, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Expansion of the Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force Membership
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

September 23, 2025

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

As the Task Force begins its work, it is recommended a
phased expansion of membership to support broader
participation, ensure representation across key sectors, and prepare for the development of bylaws and long-term governance structures. Adding four additional
stakeholder seats at this stage will support a more
balanced, community-driven process and strengthen the
Task Force’s ability to produce actionable
recommendations.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE the addition of four (4) new stakeholder positions to the Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force
which will be filled through the standard boards and
commissions process—Mayor’s Office (Eduardo Martinez
(510-620-6503).

AGENDA
REPORT
1192

December 16, 2025
DISCUSSION:

The Macdonald Avenue Corridor Task Force was created to convene stakeholders and decision-makers to identify priorities, coordinate revitalization efforts, and develop a set of recommendations for the City Council. As the Task Force moves into its next phase, expanding membership will help ensure that its work is informed by a wider range of resident, business, property-owner, and institutional perspectives.

This phased expansion is an intentional step toward building a stable governance structure. The Task Force will be drafting bylaws, clarifying membership categories, and outlining expectations for participation. Adding four (4) new stakeholder seats now allows these voices to shape that foundational work rather than being brought in after major decisions have been made.

The four (4) new seats will be open to applicants who live, are business owners, or own property within the Macdonald Avenue Corridor or who otherwise demonstrate a clear connection to and stake in the area’s revitalization. Applicants will apply through the standard Boards and Commissions process, and the Mayor’s Office will conduct the standard review and appointment process.

All appointments will return to the City Council for confirmation, following the same procedures used for other City boards, commissions, and advisory bodies. 1193

December 16, 2025
Mayor's Office
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Martinez
Subject: Proclamations Recognizing Long-Standing Retiring Staff:

Mary Phelps, Robert Chalamedos, and Laura Canelo
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Mayor’s Office seeks to recognize long-serving City of Richmond employees who are entering retirement.

Mary Phelps, Robert Chalamedos, and Laura Canelo
have each provided many years of dedicated service to
the community. This item presents proclamations
honoring their contributions.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: PROCLAMATION recognizing long-serving retiring employees Mary Phelps, Robert Chalamedos, and Laura
Canelo – Mayor's Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-
620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Mary Phelps, Robert Chelemedos, and Laura Canelo are concluding long careers with the City of Richmond, each contributing decades of service in Public Works Department and the Richmond Police Department.

AGENDA
REPORT
1194

December 16, 2025
Mary Phelps retires after 34 years, during which she advanced from Industrial Waste Inspector to Water Resource Division Manager, providing leadership in environmental compliance, enterprise fund management, and wastewater and stormwater program oversight. Her institutional knowledge and cross-departmental work have strengthened the City’s environmental and financial stewardship.

Robert Chelemedos retires after more than 35 years of service in Public Works, culminating as Streets Maintenance Superintendent. His retirement also represents the continuation of an 82-year, multigenerational Chelemedos family legacy, totaling 126 years of combined service to the City. His work developing and mentoring the next generation of maintenance leaders has had a lasting operational impact.

Laura “Chach” Canelo-Tirado retires after 33 years of service in the Richmond Police Department’s Communications Center. Known for her professionalism, steady leadership, and dedication as a dispatcher, trainer, and mentor, she supported thousands of residents and strengthened the department’s service to Richmond.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Robert Chelemedos Proclamation
Attachment 2 – Mary Phelps Proclamation
Attachment 3 – Laura Canelo Tirado Proclamation
1195
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
December 16, 2025
Proclamation Honoring the Retirement of Robert Chelemedos & Recognizing 126 years of Chelemedos family service to the City of Richmond
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond proudly recognizes Robert Chelemedos on the occasion of his retirement on December 31, 2025, culminating a distinguished 35 years, 8 months, and 8 days of dedicated public service; and
WHEREAS, Robert Chelemedos began his City career on April 23, 1990, and throughout his tenure served in numerous essential classifications, including Maintenance Worker I, Maintenance Worker II, Collections Systems Maintenance Worker, Equipment Operator, Collections Systems Lead Worker, Maintenance Lead Worker, Construction & Maintenance Supervisor, and ultimately Streets Maintenance Superintendent; and WHEREAS, the Chelemedos family has a remarkable and unmatched history of service to the City of Richmond, maintaining continuous family employment from 1943 through 2025, for an uninterrupted 82 years of service spanning multiple generations and contributing to the City’s operational strength, reliability, and commitment to public service; and WHEREAS, Robert Chelemedos is the third-generation member of a family whose dedication to Richmond public service is both exemplary and historic, and whose cumulative service totals 126 years; and
WHEREAS, the Chelemedos family legacy includes:
• George Chelemedos – Grandfather. Served from May 16, 1943, to May 26, 1968, contributing 25 years and 10 days of service to the Richmond Fire Department, retiring as a City of Richmond Fire Engineer;
• Nick Chelemedos – Great Uncle. Served from December 1949 to January 1987, contributing 37 years and 1 month in multiple key classifications including Laborer, Truck Driver, Equipment Operator, Street Supervisor, Construction & Maintenance Foreman, and Construction & Maintenance Supervisor;
• Robert G. Chelemedos – Father. Served from December 1975 to May 2004, contributing 28 years and 6 months as Maintenance Worker I, Maintenance Worker II, Equipment Operator, and Maintenance Lead Worker;
• Robert Chelemedos – Self. Serving from April 23, 1990, to December 31, 2025, contributing 35 years, 8 months, 8 days across numerous essential classifications and culminating in service as Streets Maintenance Superintendent; and WHEREAS, the combined commitment of these four members of the Chelemedos family represents an extraordinary 126 years of continuous public service to the City of Richmond, a legacy unparalleled in duration, dedication, and multigenerational civic contribution; and WHEREAS, Robert Chelemedos has trained the next generation of successful Public Works maintenance leaders and departs the City in excellent hands.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Mayor Eduardo Martinez, together with the Richmond City Council, do hereby honor Robert Chelemedos on the occasion of his retirement, express our profound appreciation for his decades of local and exceptional service, and formally recognize the Chelemedos family’s 82 years of continuous service and combined 126 year legacy of commitment to the City of Richmond. 1196
ProclamationRecognizingtheServiceandRetirementof
MaryPhelps
1197
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
December 16, 2025
Proclamation Recognizing the Service and Retirement of
Laura Canelo-Tirado
WHEREAS, Laura Canelo-Tirado has been a steadfast, dedicated pillar of the Richmond Police Department’s Communications Center for over 33 years. Her exceptional service, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to the community have made her an invaluable part of the RPD family
WHEREAS, Laura Canelo-Tirado began her career at the Richmond Police Department on May 10, 1992. She retired on December 3, 2025
WHEREAS, Laura Canelo-Tirado was known as dispatcher #1183 to the community, she was affectionately referred to as “Chach” by her friends and co-workers WHEREAS, Laura’s work ethic and dedication to the Communications Center and the City of Richmond was second to none. She was a part of the Crisis Negotiations Team as well as a Tactical Dispatcher for the Special Response Team. Dispatcher Canelo-Tirado continuously attended training sessions to maintain professional expertise and remained readily available for any unexpected call outs. She was also a Communications Training Officer and an active participant in the Communications Training Program WHEREAS, Laura continued to be a mentor and a positive role model amongst her peers and could be relied upon to achieve results even when confronted with major responsibilities and limited resources throughout her tenure, Laura retired at a dispatcher III classification.

WHEREAS, In the past 12 months alone, Dispatcher Canelo-Tirado worked a total of 820.32 hours of overtime. She contributed 455.55 hours as an Acting Supervisor and dedicated a total of 456.40 hours as a Communications Training Officer. She answered a total of 15,671 phone calls with a 10 second ring time. Laura was consistently on time and was often willing to take on additional duties when needed without hesitation WHEREAS, Dispatcher Canelo-Tirado always remained professional with citizens regardless of the nature of the incident. She is a Spanish speaker and was eager to assist Spanish speaking citizens. This allowed Officers to have the most accurate information available to them in a timely manner while providing a smooth customer service experience to our Hispanic Community
WHEREAS, Laura consistently worked at a stellar level and took pride in her career with the Richmond Police Department. She was a strong supporter of all organizational programs and activities and often encouraged loyalty and dedication within her peers. She set the standard for hard work and dedication. Her knowledge, longevity, and professionalism made her a positive mentor and role model and kept with the highest traditions of Public Safety Service provided by the Richmond Police Department NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Mayor Eduardo Martinez, together with the Richmond City Council, do hereby honor Laura Canelo-Tirado on the occasion of her retirement, express our profound appreciation for her decades of local and exceptional service. occasion of her retirement, express our profound appreciation for her decades of local and exceptional service
Cesar Zepeda
Vice Mayor
City of Richmond
1198
20-
Richmond Police Department
Crime Report
Council Report November 2025
Mayor Martinez, Council, and Community,
The Richmond Police Department's crime statistics for November 2025 show an increase in both violent and property crime totals compared to October 2025.

In terms of violent crime, there has been an increase in the number of homicides, from zero to 2. Aggravated assaults increased by 51%, from 53 to 80 incidents. Robberies increased by 60% from 10 to 16 incidents. Sexual assaults significantly increased by 91%, from 11 to 21 incidents. Overall, the total number of violent crimes increased by 61%, from 74 to 119 incidents.

For property crimes, there was an increase in burglaries (excluding auto burglaries), increasing by 70% from 23 to 39 incidents. Thefts, including auto burglaries, increased by 24%, from 66 to 82 incidents. Vehicle thefts significantly increased by 87%, from 55 to 103 incidents. Arson increased by 200% from 1 to 3 incidents. Overall, the total number of property crimes increased by 57%, from 145 to 227 incidents.

In terms of reports and calls for service, there was a 9% decrease in vehicle impounds, decreasing from 223 to 202. Collision-related calls for service increased by 10%, from 176 to 194 incidents. DUI-related traffic collisions increased by 40%, from 5 to 7 incident. DUI reports remained unchanged from the prior month, with 19 incidents.

Sideshow-related calls for service decreased by 50%, from 2 incidents to 1. The total number of firearms recovered increased by 110%, from 10 to 21.

The Parking Enforcement Unit towed 103 vehicles for being abandoned, overparked, or having expired registration, compared to 99 vehicles in October for a 7% increase. They issued 4,379 parking citations, compared to 4,929 citations in October, for an 11% decrease. The Parking Unit responded to 241 citizen complaints regarding abandoned vehicles, resulting in 110 vehicles being cited or tagged with 72-hour notices to move or be towed. Of the 110 vehicles, 77 vehicles were ultimately towed.

District 1 experienced a 9% decrease in total calls for service, decreasing from 1,510 to 1,370 calls. District 2 experienced a 18% decrease in total calls for service, decreasing from 1,348 to 1,102 calls. District 3 experienced a 5% decrease in total calls for service, decreasing from 1,590 to 1,518 calls. District 4 experienced an 2% decrease in total calls for service, from 610 to 598. District 5 saw a 1% decrease in total calls for service, from 1,209 calls to 1,193. District 6 saw a 3% decrease in total calls for service, from 1,023 calls to 993.

These statistics offer a snapshot of crime trends in Richmond for November 2025, highlighting areas of concern as well as notable improvements. Additional statistical data and historical data can be found on our website under the Crime Analysis page located at: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/1023/Crime-Analysis 1199
Additionally, the following are a sampling of some significant incidents from November 2025:
11/3/25 900 blk. 30th St.

Assault with a deadly weapon
Officers responded to reports of a subject who had been shot near the location. Officers located the victim, who provided conflicting statements. Officers searched the area but were unable to locate a crime scene. The victim was transported to a local trauma center for treatment.
11/4/25 1500 Nevin Plaza
Burglary
Officers responded to reports of a masked subject who entered a business through a roof hatch. Officers arrived on the scene and located the suspect on the business's roof.

As officers established a perimeter, the suspect climbed onto the balcony of an adjoining residence and entered the residence. Officers contacted the homeowner and confirmed that they were not home and that no one should be inside. The homeowner gave officers access to the residence. After numerous announcements to surrender, the suspect refused to show himself. Officers entered the residence and, with the assistance of a K9, located the suspect hiding in the attic. The suspect was arrested for residential burglary.
11/8/25 800 Carlson Blvd
Homicide
Officers responded to a ShotSpotter activation, followed by callers reporting a subject being shot at the location. Officers responded and located the victim suffering from a gunshot wound. EMS attempted life-saving measures, but the victim succumbed to their injuries at the scene. RPD Homicide detectives responded and are investigating. 11/17/25 2500 Blk. Chanslor Ave
Burglary
Officers responded to reports of a wire theft in progress. Officers responded and caught the suspect in the act of removing copper power lines from a power pole. The suspect was arrested without incident, and PG&E responded and determined the suspect had attempted to steal approximately $5,000.00 worth of copper power line. 11/23/25 2400 Macdonald Ave
Hit and Run with Injury
Officers responded to reports of a two-vehicle collision with injuries. Prior to officers arriving on the scene, one of the vehicles fled the scene. Officers checked the surrounding area and located the vehicle that fled several blocks away. Officers stopped the car, and the driver was arrested for hit-and-run with injury. 1200
11/29/25 Bayview Ave / S. 55th St
Copper Wire Theft
Officers responded to reports of a copper wire theft in progress. Officers responded and located the suspect red-handed, collecting cut copper wiring from an underground vault owned by Caltrans. Cal Trans responded and determined the suspect had cut approximately 700 yards of metal wires, causing thousands of dollars in damage. The suspect was arrested and booked into the RPD jail.

Tim Simmons
Assistant Chief of Police
Richmond Police Department
1201

December 16, 2025
Police Department
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Timothy Simmons, Assistant Chief of Police
Subject: Contract Amendment No. 2 with Serological Research Institute for Forensic DNA Testing and Analysis
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $100,000 expenditure is included within the approved Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Police Department
budget and will be budgeted accordingly in the
subsequent fiscal year budgets (Account String:
01191021 - 400201).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 16, 2024

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Serological Research Institute has industry leading lab equipment and testing procedures that can return
positive results in 98 percent of cases. The patented
technology can outperform Contra Costa County Lab
equipment in head-to-head tests. Richmond Police
Department staff would like to add funds and extend the contract termination date.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE a second contract amendment with the Serological Research Institute (SERI) for advanced
forensic DNA testing and analysis laboratory services,
increasing the payment limit by $100,000, for a total
payment limit of $159,000, and extending the term
expiration of the contract to April 16, 2028 – Police
Department (Assistant Chief Timothy Simmons 510-621-
1802).

AGENDA
REPORT
1202

December 16, 2025
DISCUSSION:

Forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis plays an essential role in modern law enforcement and criminal justice operations. Advances in DNA technology have revolutionized the way investigators identify offenders, exonerate the innocent, and bring resolution to unsolved cases. The accuracy and reliability of forensic DNA testing are vital to the success of these investigations and to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Since its founding in 1978, the Serological Research Institute (SERI) has established itself as a leader in forensic biological sciences. The laboratory has processed over 14,000 cases involving homicides, sexual assaults, missing persons, kinship analysis, property crimes, and more. SERI’s clients include law enforcement agencies, district attorneys’ offices, public and federal defenders, and private attorneys throughout the United States. Their work has been instrumental in solving cold cases, identifying serial offenders, and exonerating the wrongfully accused.

SERI analysts are recognized experts in the fields of body fluid identification, DNA amplification, Short Tandem Repeat (STR) and Y-chromosome Short Tandem Repeat (YSTR) analysis, and mitochondrial DNA sequencing. They are skilled in recovering usable genetic information from low-level or degraded samples and interpreting complex DNA mixtures involving multiple contributors. SERI’s analysts are also courtqualified expert witnesses who have collectively provided more than 50 years of testimony experience in state and federal courts.

The Police Department sought proposals from forensic DNA laboratories capable of providing advanced testing and analysis for evidentiary samples but only SERI satisfied all the needs the Richmond Police Department sought and thus received an approved sole source authorization form. Three laboratories were evaluated based on experience, range of services, turnaround time, and cost. While one vendor offered lower prices, its scope of work was limited to standard STR analysis and lacked mitochondrial and YSTR capabilities. Another vendor provided comparable services but required outsourcing for specialized testing, which could delay case turnaround and complicate chain-of-custody procedures.

SERI was selected and received sole source approval based on its comprehensive range of forensic services, long-standing reputation for scientific excellence, and proven reliability in handling complex and sensitive evidence. In addition to traditional STR analysis, SERI offers mitochondrial DNA sequencing for degraded or aged samples, YSTR testing for male-specific DNA analysis, and kinship and paternity testing services.

SERI also partners with the Contra Costa County Crime Laboratory, a Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) laboratory, for qualifying uploads to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Combined DNA Index System, ensuring that investigative leads are pursued efficiently.
1203

December 16, 2025
Given SERI’s demonstrated expertise, history of collaboration with law enforcement agencies, and ability to produce high-quality, defensible results, Police Department staff recommend a second contract amendment with the Serological Research Institute (SERI) for forensic DNA testing and analysis services by adding $100,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $159,000, and extending the contract term to April 16, 2028, for a contract term of April 17, 2024, to April 16, 2028. The first contract amendment had only extended the contract expiration date by one year, to April 16, 2026, and did not go to City Council.

This contract will be a stand-alone agreement and will not affect the City’s existing contract for routine evidence collection or laboratory screening services. The addition of SERI will ensure that the Police Department has reliable access to advanced DNA testing and expert consultation for complex or sensitive cases requiring specialized forensic analysis.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Second Contract Amendment
Attachment 2 – First Contract Amendment
Attachment 3 – Original Contract
1204
DocID #34720v1

CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, a public body corporate and politic, and the following named Contractor:

Contractor Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No:

A California: corporation, limited liability corporation, general partnership, limited partnership, individual, non-profit corporation, individual dba as [specify:] _________________________________________ other [specify:] ___________________________________________________

2. Purpose. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the following Contract between City and Contractor (list terms in effect on the date of initial Contract approval):

City Council Approval Date/City Manager Execution Date: ____________________________ Effective Date: ___________________; Termination Date: ____________________________ Payment Limit: ___________________.
[check box if applicable] The Contract was previously amended, as described in the amendment history attached to this Contract Amendment, and the terms and conditions of any amendments shall be deemed to be a part of the Contract.

3. Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Contract, including any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment, and which shall remain in full force and effect.

Department: City Project Manager:

City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:

Vendor No: Contract No:

Description of Services:

Amendment No. ___ modifies the (check all that apply):

Term Payment Limit Service Plan
Complete the Amendment History page if this Amendment is the 2nd or subsequent amendment.

POLICE SGT. NELSON [email protected] 510-620-6616 9898 6923

DNA ANALYSIS AND TESTING SERVICES FOR INVESTIGATIONS
2 SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3053 RESEARCH DRIVE RICHMOND, CA 94806 Ledia McVeigh, Director of Operations & Administration (510) 223-7374 [email protected] 40004172 4/16/2024 4/17/2024 4/16/2025 49,000 1205
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025

4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Contract.

5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section

7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained. Pursuant to the Contract, the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

7. Authority; Counterparts; Signatures. Each of the signatories hereto represents and warrants that he or she has the authority to execute this Contract Amendment for the Party on whose behalf he or she is executing this Contract Amendment. This Contract Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Parties may rely on electronic or scanned signatures as originals. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Contract Amendment by electronic format (including pdf) shall be the same as delivery of an original executed signature page.

CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation
By: ________________________________
Title: ______________________________
Date Signed: ________________________
I hereby certify that this Amendment has been
approved by the City Council or executed by the
City Manager.

By: _______________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

By: _______________________________
City Attorney
[CONTRACTOR NAME]
(*If applicable, the Corporation Chairperson of the
Board, President, or Vice-President should sign
below.)
By: ____________________________________
Title: __________________________________
Date Signed: ____________________________
(*If applicable, the Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant
Secretary should sign below.)
By: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________
*(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a corporation or
nonprofit organization, this Contract (1) should be
signed by the Chairperson of the Board, President
or Vice-President and the Chief Financial Officer
or Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant
Secretary; (2) should have both signatures
conform to designated representative groups
pursuant to Corporations Code Section 313.)

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
1206
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)
If no prior amendments, skip to next page.

The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on ______________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The second Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on _________________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The third Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on _______________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The fourth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on ________________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The fifth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on ________________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
The sixth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council or executed by the City Manager on _______________________ for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $_________________ for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________
Term Amendment (insert new termination date): ________________________ Service Plan
5/5/2025 10,000 59,000 04/16/2026
1207
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM, PAYMENT LIMIT AND/OR SERVICE PLAN) Check all that apply:

TERM

PAYMENT
LIMIT

SERVICE
PLAN
Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragraph 2 of the Contract is amended to read as follows:
"2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is
________________________________________________________ (Insert Contract Effective Date)
and it terminates
________________________________________________________. (Insert new Contract termination date)
unless sooner terminated as provided herein."
Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $__________________. Paragraph 3 of the Contract is amended to read as follows:
"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $_____________________ including expenses."
“The City shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Council or executed by the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.” The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:
(Insert description of additional tasks/services. Use additional pages if necessary.) ■
4/17/2024 4/16/2028 ■ 100,000 159,000
1208
DocID #34720v1

CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, a public body corporate and politic, and the following named Contractor:

Contractor Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No:

A California: corporation, limited liability corporation, general partnership, limited partnership, individual, non-profit corporation, individual dba as [specify:] _________________________________________ other [specify:] ___________________________________________________

2. Purpose. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the following Contract between City and Contractor (list terms in effect on the date of initial Contract approval):

City Council Approval Date/City Manager Execution Date: ____________________________ Effective Date: ___________________; Termination Date: ____________________________ Payment Limit: ___________________.
[check box if applicable] The Contract was previously amended, as described in the amendment history attached to this Contract Amendment, and the terms and conditions of any amendments shall be deemed to be a part of the Contract.

3. Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Contract, including any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment, and which shall remain in full force and effect.

Department: City Project Manager:

City Project Manager E-mail: City Project Manager Phone No:

Vendor No: Contract No:

Description of Services:

Amendment No. ___ modifies the (check all that apply):

Term Payment Limit Service Plan
Complete the Amendment History page if this Amendment is the 2nd or subsequent amendment.

POLICE SGT. NELSON [email protected] 510-620-6616 9898 6923 DNA ANALYSIS AND TESTING SERVICES FOR INVESTIGATIONS.
1 SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3053 RESEARCH DRIVE RICHMOND, CA 94806 Ledia McVeigh, Director of Operations & Administration (510) 223-7374 [email protected] 40004172 4/16/2024 4/17/2024 04/16/2025 49,000 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1209
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025

4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Contract.

5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section

7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained. Pursuant to the Contract, the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

7. Authority; Counterparts; Signatures. Each of the signatories hereto represents and warrants that he or she has the authority to execute this Contract Amendment for the Party on whose behalf he or she is executing this Contract Amendment. This Contract Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Parties may rely on electronic or scanned signatures as originals. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Contract Amendment by electronic format (including pdf) shall be the same as delivery of an original executed signature page.

CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation
By: ________________________________
Title: ______________________________
Date Signed: ________________________
I hereby certify that this Amendment has been
approved by the City Council or executed by the
City Manager.

By: _______________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

By: _______________________________
City Attorney
[CONTRACTOR NAME]
(*If applicable, the Corporation Chairperson of the
Board, President, or Vice-President should sign
below.)
By: ____________________________________
Title: __________________________________
Date Signed: ____________________________
(*If applicable, the Corporation Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant
Secretary should sign below.)
By: ___________________________________
Title: __________________________________
*(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a corporation or
nonprofit organization, this Contract (1) should be
signed by the Chairperson of the Board, President
or Vice-President and the Chief Financial Officer
or Assistant Treasurer, or Secretary or Assistant
Secretary; (2) should have both signatures
conform to designated representative groups
pursuant to Corporations Code Section 313.)

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 Secretary Treasurer & CFO
4/14/2025
5/5/2025
City Manager
1210
DocID #34720v1 Modified January 14, 2025

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM, PAYMENT LIMIT AND/OR SERVICE PLAN) Check all that apply:

TERM

PAYMENT
LIMIT

SERVICE
PLAN
Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragraph 2 of the Contract is amended to read as follows:
"2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is
________________________________________________________ (Insert Contract Effective Date)
and it terminates
________________________________________________________. (Insert new Contract termination date)
unless sooner terminated as provided herein."
Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $__________________. Paragraph 3 of the Contract is amended to read as follows:
"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $_____________________ including expenses."
“The City shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Council or executed by the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.” The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:
(Insert description of additional tasks/services. Use additional pages if necessary.) ■
04/17/2024 04/16/2026 ■ 10,000 59,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1211

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail: Project Manager Phone No:

PR No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond (herein referred to as the “City”) and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:] ,
[ ] other [specify:]

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is and it
terminates unless terminated as provided herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $ . City shall not pay for services that exceed
the Contract Payment Limit unless a contract amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager.

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor shall provide those services and carry out that work described in the Service Plan (Exhibit A) which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

5. City's Obligations. City shall make to the Contractor those payments described in the Payment Provisions (Exhibit B) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

POLICE Lt. Bashan, Police Dept. [email protected] (510) 620-6613 9898 6923 DNA Analysis on evidence collected by Richmond Police Department Investigations Unit.

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3053 RESEARCH DRIVE RICHMOND, CA 94806 Ledia McVeigh, Director of Operations & Administration (510) 223-7374 [email protected] 40004172 December 31, 2024 April 17, 2024 April 16, 2025 49,000 ✔ DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1212

6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein. (Note:
other than Public Works contracts, the City will agree to Special Conditions only in unusual circumstances.)

9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

10. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' Contract hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRACTOR:
a municipal corporation

By:
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice President should sign below)

Title: By:

I hereby certify that this Contract Title:
has been approved by City Council.

Date Signed:

By:

City Clerk
(* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign below)
Approved as to form:

By:

By: Title:

City Attorney
Date Signed:

(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a corporation
or nonprofit organization, this Contract (1) must
be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice-President and (b) the
Secretary any Assistant Secretary, the Chief
Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Standard Contract/EJ/TE 9-26-07

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Secretary Treasurer & CFO
4/17/2024
Mayor
Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 4/14/2025
Secretary Treasurer & CFO
1213
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the , perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below:

Police Department
Perform DNA Analysis and report findings according to requests for service by Richmond Police Department in an effort to solve crimes by connecting suspects to evidence collected from the crime scene.

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1214
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS
{PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF RICHMOND SHALL NOT PAY FOR SERVICES

THAT EXCEED THE CONTRACT PAYMENT LIMIT UNLESS A CONTRACT

AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER}

1. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated as provided below.

2. Any and all payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photo copying, meals and travel etc). Invoices, shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request.

3. Contractor shall submit timely invoices to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond, Finance Department - Accounts Payable Project Manager: Department:

PO Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804-0046

4. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City’s Project Manager, before payments shall be authorized.

5. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.

6. A Richmond business license shall be obtained before any payment under this Contract shall be authorized and the business license must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized.

7. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract shall be executed by the City. The insurance coverage must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized.

Lt. Bashan, Police Dept. SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE POLICE Lt. Bashan, Police Dept.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1215
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. Notices. All notices, demands, statements, or communications provided for by this Contract shall be in writing and may be delivered by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices to the City shall be addressed to the Department Head and (as delineated below in section 1.1) to the project manager responsible for the administration of or the supervision of the scope of work under this Contract. Notices to the Contractor shall be addressed to the party designated by Contractor (as delineated below in section 1.2). Notice shall be deemed delivered (a) upon personal delivery; (b) as of the fifth business day after mailing by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the proper party; or (c) as of 12:00 p.m. on the second business day immediately after the day it is deposited with and accepted by Federal Express, or a similar overnight courier service, addressed to the proper party and marked for next business day morning delivery. For the purposes of this Contract, a "business day" means any day Monday through Friday that is not a holiday recognized by the federal government or the State of California.

1. 1 CITY hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

City of Richmond
Richmond, CA 94804-0046

1. 2 CONTRACTOR hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Lt. Bashan, Police Dept. 1701 Regatta Blvd. Ledia McVeigh, Director of Operations & Administration 3053 RESEARCH DRIVE RICHMOND, CA 94806 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1216
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 1 of 13

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Independent Contractor. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor is not a regular or temporary employee, joint venturer or partner of the City, but rather an independent Contractor. This Contract shall not be construed to create an agency, servant, employee, partnership, or joint venture relationship. As an independent Contractor, Contractor shall have no authority to bind City to any obligation or to act as City's agent except as expressly provided herein. Due to the independent Contractor relationship created by this Contract, City shall not withhold state or federal income taxes, the reporting of which shall be Contractor's sole responsibility.

2. Brokers. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor has not hired, retained or agreed to pay any entity or person any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract.

3. City Property. The rights to applicable plans, drawings, reports, calculations, data, specifications, videos, graphics or other materials prepared for or obtained pursuant to this Contract, which, upon request, are to be delivered to City within a reasonable time, shall be deemed assigned to City. If applicable, Contractor shall prepare check prints upon request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 15 below, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data.

4. Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Rights in Data. Contractor shall not publish or transfer any materials, discoveries, developments, concepts, designs, ideas, know how, improvements, inventions and/or original works of authorship resulting from activities supported by this Contract without the express prior written consent of the City Manager. If anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract is patentable, trademarkable, copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable, City reserves the exclusive right to seek such intellectual property rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may, after receiving City's prior written consent, seek patent, trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights on anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract. However, City reserves, and Contractor irrevocably grants, a nonexclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free, assumable, perpetual, worldwide license, with the right to transfer, sublicense, practice and exploit said license and the right to make, have made, copy, modify, make derivative works of, use, sell, DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1217
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 2 of 13
import, and otherwise distribute under all applicable intellectual properties without restriction of any kind said license.

Contractor further agrees to assist City, at City's expense, in every proper way to secure the City’s rights in any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto, including the disclosure to City of all pertinent information and data with respect thereto. Contractor shall also assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations, and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to apply for, obtain, maintain and transfer such rights, or if not transferable, to waive such rights. Contractor shall further assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to assign and convey to City, and any assigns and nominees the sole and exclusive right, title and interest in and to any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto. Contractor further agrees that its obligation to execute or cause to be executed, when it is in Contractor's power to do so, any such instruments or papers shall continue during and at all times after the end of Contractor's services and until the expiration of the last such intellectual property right. Contractor hereby irrevocably designates and appoints City, and its duly authorized officers, agents and servants, as its agent and attorney-in-fact, to act for and in its behalf and stead to execute and file any such applications and to do all other lawfully permitted acts to further the application for, prosecution, issuance, maintenance or transfer of letters of patents, copyright and other registrations. This power of attorney is coupled with an interest and shall not be affected by Contractor's subsequent incapacity.

5. Inspection. Contractor's performance, place of business and records pertaining to this Contract are subject to monitoring, inspection, review and audit by authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

If the project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work without notice. If such project or services shall not be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work upon reasonable notice.

6. Services. The project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed to the full satisfaction and approval of City. In the event that the project or services set forth in Exhibit A are also itemized by price, City, in its sole discretion, may, upon notice to Contractor, delete certain items or services set forth in Exhibit A, in which case there shall be a corresponding reduction in the amount of compensation paid to Contractor.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1218
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 3 of 13
Contractor shall, at its own cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment necessary for Contractor to complete the project or perform the services required herein, unless otherwise provided in Exhibit A.

7. Records. Contractor shall keep and make available for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the City, the State of California, and the United States Government, the Contractor's regular business records and such additional records pertaining to this Contract as may be required by the City.

Contractor shall retain all documents pertaining to this Contract for a period of five (5) years after this Contract's termination (or for any further period that is required by law) and until all Federal or State audits are complete and exceptions resolved for this contract's funding period. Upon request, CONTRACTOR shall make these records available to authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts, maintain records, and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Contract. The Contractor’s accounting and control systems shall be satisfactory to City. Contractor's accounting systems shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles and all records shall provide a breakdown of total costs charged under this Contract, including properly executed payrolls, time records, utility bills, invoices and vouchers. The City shall be afforded prompt access to Contractor's records, books, and Contractor shall preserve such project records for a period of at least five (5 years after the termination of this Contract , or for such longer period as may be required by law.

Contractor shall permit City and its authorized representatives and accountants to inspect, examine and copy Contractor's books, records, accounts, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to the project or services set forth in Exhibit A, and any and all data relevant to this Contract at any reasonable time for the purpose of auditing and verifying statements, invoices, or bills submitted by Contractor pursuant to this Contract and shall provide such assistance as may be reasonably required in the course of such inspection. Contractor shall also allow City access to the record keeping and accounting personnel of Contractor.

City further reserves the right to examine and re-examine said books, records, accounts, and data during the five (5 year period following the termination of this Contract; and Contractor shall in no event dispose of, destroy, alter, or mutilate said books, records, accounts, and data in any manner whatever for five (5 years after the termination of this Contract.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1219
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 4 of 13
Pursuant to California Government Code § 10527, the parties to this Contract shall be subject to the examination and audit of representatives of the Auditor General of the State of California for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Contract. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of this Contract including, but not limited to, the cost of administering this Contract.

8. Changes and Extra Work. All changes and/or extra work under this Contract shall be performed and paid for in accordance with the following:

Only the City Council or the City Manager may authorize extra and/or changed work. Contractor expressly recognizes that other City personnel are without authorization to either order extra and/or changed work or waive contract requirements. Failure of Contractor to secure the authorization for such extra and/or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in contract price due to such unauthorized work and Contractor thereafter shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for performance of such extra and/or changed work.

If Contractor is of the opinion that any work which Contractor has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work, Contractor shall promptly notify City of the fact. The City shall make a determination as to whether or not such work is, in fact, beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work. In the event that City determines that such work does constitute extra work, City shall provide extra compensation to Contractor on a fair and equitable basis. A change order or Contract Amendment providing for such compensation for extra work shall be negotiated between City and Contractor and executed by Contractor and the appropriate City official.

In the event City determines that such work does not constitute extra work, Contractor shall not be paid extra compensation above that provided herein and if such determination is made by City staff, said determination may be appealed to the City Council; provided, however, a written appeal must be submitted to the City Manager within five (5) days after the staff's determination is sent to Contractor. Said written appeal shall include a description of each and every ground upon which Contractor challenges the staff's determination.

9. Additional Assistance. If this Contract requires Contractor to prepare plans and specifications, Contractor shall provide assistance as necessary to resolve any questions regarding such plans and specifications that may arise during the period of advertising for bids, and Contractor shall issue DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1220
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 5 of 13
any necessary addenda to the plans and specifications as requested. In the event Contractor is of the opinion that City's requests for addenda and assistance is outside the scope of normal services, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the changes and extra work provisions of Section 8 of these General Conditions.

10. Professional Ability. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor and its employees are skilled and able to competently provide the services hereunder, and possess all professional licenses, certifications, and approvals necessary to engage in their occupations.

City has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Contract. Contractor shall perform in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards of Contractor's profession. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, desires the removal of any person employed or retained by Contractor to perform services hereunder, such person shall be removed immediately upon receiving notice from City.

11. Business License. Contractor shall obtain a Richmond Business License before performing any services required under this Contract. The failure to so obtain such license shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

12. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder, immediately upon written notice to Contractor. Contractor may terminate this Contract at any time in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause upon 30 days' written notice to City. In the event of termination by either party, Contractor shall be compensated for: (1) all authorized work satisfactorily performed prior to the effective date of termination; (2) necessary materials or services of others ordered by Contractor for this Contract, prior to receipt of notice of termination, irrespective of whether such materials or services of others have actually been delivered, provided that Contractor is not able to cancel such orders. Compensation for Contractor in such event shall be determined by City in accordance with the percentage of the project or services completed by Contractor; and all of Contractor's finished or unfinished work product through the time of the City's last payment shall be transferred and assigned to City. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1221
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 6 of 13

13. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Section 12 of these General Conditions; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

14. Conflict of Interest. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

15. Indemnification.
(a) If this Contract is a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) and Contractor is a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of, or pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall immediately defend and indemnify the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all liabilities, regardless of nature or type, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, or its employees, agents, or subcontractors.

Liabilities subject to the duties to defend and indemnify include, without limitation, any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments; associated investigation and administrative expenses; defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees; court costs; and costs of alternative dispute resolution. Contractor’s obligation to DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1222
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 7 of 13
indemnify applies unless it is finally adjudicated that the liability was caused by the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of an indemnified party.
(b) If this Contract is not a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) or Contractor is not a design professional as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description, brought forth on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property arising from or connected with the willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions, ultra-hazardous activities, activities giving rise to strict liability, or defects in design by Contractor or any person directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as, the agent for Contractor in the performance of this Contract, including the concurrent or successive passive negligence of the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.
(c) It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Contractor shall be obligated to defend, in all legal, equitable, administrative, or special proceedings, with counsel approved by the City, the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, immediately upon tender to Contractor of the claim in any form or at any stage of an action or proceeding, whether or not liability is established. An allegation or determination that persons other than Contractor are responsible for the claim does not relieve Contractor from its separate and distinct obligation to defend under this Section 15. The obligation to defend extends through final judgment, including exhaustion of any appeals. The defense obligation includes an obligation to provide independent counsel if Contractor asserts that liability is caused in whole, or in part, by the negligence or willful misconduct of an indemnified party. (d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Contractor’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Contractor’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section 15 survives completion of the services or the termination of this Contract.

The provisions of this Section 15 are not limited by, and do not affect, the provisions of this Contract relating to insurance.
(e) Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Contract does not relieve Contractor from liability under this Section

15. This Section 15 shall apply whether or not such insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages.

16. Safety. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor shall perform all work hereunder in full compliance with applicable local, state and federal safety requirements including but not limited to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and shall assume sole and complete DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1223
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 8 of 13
responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any subContractor's employees. If a death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract, Contractor shall immediately notify the City by telephone.

17. Insurance. Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.

18. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the City. No official or employee of the City shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Contract.

19. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative bodies or tribunals, with respect to this Contract, including without limitation environmental laws, employment discrimination laws and prevailing wage laws. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50, 2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.

Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor shall promptly provide to City documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Also as prescribed in § 2.60.070, Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance.

Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or subcontractor under a contract or subcontract with the City for public work or for goods or for services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential subcontractor.

Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies . Contractor agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

20. Limitations upon Subcontracting and Assignment. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1224
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 9 of 13
under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.

Contractor acknowledges that the services which Contractor shall provide under this Contract are unique, personal services which, except as otherwise provided herein, Contractor shall not assign or sublet to any other party without the prior written approval of City, which approval may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion. In the event that City, in writing, approves any assignment or subletting of this Contract or the retention of subcontractors by Contractor, Contractor shall provide to City upon request copies of each and every subcontract contract prior to the execution thereof by Contractor and subcontractor. Any assignment by Contractor of any or all of its rights under this Contract without first obtaining City's prior written consent shall be a default under this Contract.

The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or joint-venture or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.

21. Integration. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous oral or written agreement; provided, however, that correspondence or documents exchanged between Contractor and City may be used to assist in the interpretation of the Exhibits to this Contract.

22. Modifications and Amendments. This Contract may be modified or amended only by a change order or Contract Amendment executed by both parties and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

23. Conflicting Provisions. In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Conditions as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.

24. Non-exclusivity. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the services provided by Contractor hereunder shall be non-exclusive, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1225
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 10 of 13
City reserves the right to employ other Contractors in connection with the project.

25. Exhibits. All Exhibits hereto are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference; provided, however, that any language in Exhibit A which does not pertain to the project description, proposal, scope of services, or method of compensation (as applicable) , or any corresponding responsibilities of City, shall be deemed extraneous to, and not a part of, this Contract.

26. Force Majeure. Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.

27. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract. Contractor and City agree that any time period set forth in Exhibit A represents their best estimates with respect to completion dates and both Contractor and City acknowledge that departures from the schedule may occur.

Therefore, both Contractor and City will use reasonable efforts to notify one another of changes to the schedule. Contractor shall not be responsible for performance delays caused by others, or delays beyond Contractor's control, and such delays shall extend the times for performance of Contractor's work.

28. Confidentiality. Contractor agrees to comply with, and to require its employees, agents and partners to comply with, all applicable State or Federal statutes or regulations respecting confidentially, including but not limited to, the identity of persons served under this Contract, their records, or services provided them, and assures that:

All applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by Contractor or any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of or relating to services provided under this Contract will be confidential, and will not be open to examination for any purposes not directly connected with the administration of such service.

No person will publish or disclose or permit or cause to be published or disclosed, any list of persons receiving services, except as may be required in the administration of such service.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1226
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 11 of 13

29. Third Parties. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as creating any rights or benefits in any third parties. For purposes hereof, transferees or assignees as permitted under this Contract shall not be considered "third parties."

30. Governing Law. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the law of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law.

This Contract is made in Contra Costa County, California, and any action relating to this Contract shall be instituted and prosecuted in the courts of Contra Costa County, California.

31. Nonrenewal. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no representation, implication, or understanding that the services provided by Contractor under this Contract will be purchased or renewed by the City under a new contract following expiration or termination of this Contract, and waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure by City to continue the purchase of all or any failure to continue purchase of all or any such services from Contractor.

32. Claims. Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.

33. Interpretation. This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.

34. Warranty. In the event that any product shall be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.

35. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1227
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 12 of 13
toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

36. Authority. City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, and shall be personally liable to City if he or she is not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

37. Waiver. The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.

Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payments therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.

38. Possessory Interest. If this Contract results in the Contractor having possession of, claim to or right to the possession of land or improvements, but does not vest ownership of the land or improvements in the same person, or if this Contract results in the placement of taxable improvements on tax exempt land (Revenue and Taxation Code 107), such interest or improvements may represent a possessory interest subject to property tax, and Contractor may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest.

39. Performance and Final Acceptance.

Contractor represents that it is experienced, qualified, registered, licensed, equipped, organized and financed to perform the services under this Contract.

Contractor shall perform the services under this Contract with that degree of skill and judgment normally exercised by professional firms performing services of a similar nature in the State of California, and shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of the services it performs under this Contract. In addition to the other rights and remedies which City may have, Contractor shall, at its own expense, correct any services which fail to meet the above standard.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1228
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 13 of 13
City shall provide Contractor an opportunity to cure errors and omission which may be disclosed during the review of submittals, with no increase in the authorized Contract Payment Limit. Should Contractor fail to make necessary corrections in a timely manner, such corrections shall be made by the City and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor.

If warranted, City shall determine, and Contractor may request such determination, that Contractor has satisfactorily completed performance of this Contract. Upon such determination, City shall issue to Contractor a written Notice of Final Acceptance, after which Contractor shall not incur further costs under this Contract. Contractor shall respond to such Notice of Final Acceptance by executing and submitting to City a Release and Certificate of Final Payment.

40. Survival. The rights and obligations of the parties which by their nature survive termination or completion of the services covered by this Contract shall remain in full force and effect after termination or completion.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1229
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable):

41. Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance (SCCO) -- The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit H, prior to the execution of this Agreement.

42. The Supplemental Conditions of the Short Form Contract are hereby amended to include the following modifications:
a. Remove the following statements from the Insurance Requirements:
(1) CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.
(2) 5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation Insurance. (3) Fidelity Bond/Crime Coverage
(4) Waiver of Subrogation Endorsement Form

43. The City of Richmond will take every effort to pay invoices received by Accounts Payable within thirty (30) days.

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1230
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS
During the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, the CONTRACTOR shall keep in effect insurance policies meeting the insurance requirements specified in the insurance provisions which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1231
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 1 of 4
Revised: September 2011
In all instances where a CONTRACTOR or its representatives will be conducting business and/or providing services, the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, agreement, or other order for work, services or supplies, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Maintenance of proper insurance coverage is a material element of the contract. Failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract.

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Original, signed certificates and original, separate policy endorsements, naming the City as an additional insured for general liability, as well as a waiver of subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be received and approved by the City before any work may begin. However, failure to do so shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements.

City reserves the right to modify or require additional coverages for specific risk exposures depending on scope of CONTRACTORS work.

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy.

The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

Minimum Scope of Insurance – the following forms shall be provided and coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001) including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations.

2. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage (ISO Form CA 0001, Code 1, Any Auto)

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsements for General Liability (ISO Form CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.

4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.

5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction Insurance.

6. Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction insurance covering all risks of loss less policy exclusions when the City of Richmond has a financial interest in the property. – (Only required for Construction Contracts involving property)

7. Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if applicable for Construction Contractors) Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to SelfInsure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and SelfInsurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1232
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 2 of 4
Revised: September 2011

PROJECT COST REQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $5 million $2 million p/o
$5 million - $10 million $5 million p/o
Over $10 million $10 million p/o
Fireworks $5 million p/o
General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)

Includes coverage for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage and products and completed operations. The policy shall not exclude coverage for XCU perils (explosion, collapse, or damage to underground property).

If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).

Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.

Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

Builders’ Risk/Course of
Construction – Covers property
under construction, repair or
renovation as well as equipment
and materials to be installed.
(Only required for Construction
Projects involving property and
equipment installation.)
Coverage shall include all risks of direct physical loss, excluding earthquake, for an amount equal to the full completed value of the covered structure or replacement value of alterations or additions, including soft costs and business interruption.

If the project does not involve new or major reconstruction, an Installation Floater may be acceptable. For such projects, a property installation floater shall be obtained that provides for the improvement, remodel, modification, alteration, conversion or adjustment to existing buildings, structures, processes, machinery and equipment. The Property Installation Floater shall provide property damage coverage for any building, structure, machinery or equipment damaged, impaired, broken or destroyed during the performance of the Work, including during transit, installation and testing at the City of Richmond’s site.

The City of Richmond shall be named as loss payee as its interest may appear. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against City.

Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if
applicable)
Protects against:
unexpected/unintended release of
pollution resulting from contractors
covered operations such as:

HVAC, paving, carpentry, pipeline
& tank installation, drillers,
remediation contractors,
maintenance, mechanical,
demolition, excavation, grading,
street/road construction,
residential & commercial builders.

Same limits as General Liability.

Required Policy Conditions
A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Better. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONTRACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.

Additional Insured Endorsement Applicable to General Liability Coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured, including but not limited to bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. The endorsement must not exclude products and completed operations coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1233
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 3 of 4
Revised: September 2011
Additional Insured Endorsement
(continued)
SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers Compensation and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction coverage during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

Contractor is responsible for satisfaction of the deductible and/or self-insured retention for each loss.

Loss Payable Endorsement (only
required when Builder’s Risk
and/or Course of Construction
Insurance is required.)
Applicable to Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction naming the City of Richmond as Loss Payee.

SURETY BONDS
(If a Public Works/Engineering
Project)
The Contractor shall provide:

1. A Bid bond

2. A Performance Bond

3. A Payment Bond
Umbrella/Excess Liability Policies
If an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy is used to meet the liability limits, coverage shall be as broad as specified for underlying coverages and cover those insured in the underlying policies.

Claims-Made Policies
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or nonrenewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Subcontractors
CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish to the City for review and approval, separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies. The fact that insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1234
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors
Type 1 – Page 4 of 4
Revised: September 2011
Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin. The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

Original insurance certificates and required policy endorsements shall be mailed, or delivered to the Designated Project Manager for the City of Richmond.

Insurance certificates and endorsements may be faxed to the Designated Project Manager. However, Contractor must mail the original certificates and endorsements to Designated Project Manager once faxed.

Continuous Coverage
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the required insurance for the life of the contract. Should the CONTRACTOR cease to have insurance as required during this time, all work by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to comply with the City’s insurance requirements, the City may take such action as it deems necessary to protect the City’s interests. Such action may include but is not limited to termination of the contract, withholding of payments, or other actions as the City deems appropriate.

If services or the scope of work extend beyond the expiration dates of the required insurance policies initially approved by the City, CONTRACTOR must provide updated certificates and endorsements indicating that the required coverage, terms and conditions are still in place. Renewal certificates and updated endorsements shall be mailed to the Designated Project Manager.

Cancellation
CONTRACTOR shall ensure that coverage shall not be cancelled, reduced or otherwise materially changed except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice has been given to the City.

Reporting Requirements
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1235
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies; ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this Statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 2024 , at , California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)

EXHIBIT H

CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
The undersigned, an authorized agent of (hereafter
"Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:

SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 12TH MARCH RICHMOND LEDIA MCVEIGH DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION 3/12/24 SEROLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE DocuSign Envelope ID: 7329DA51-A694-455A-9F40-279202488644 Docusign Envelope ID: BD1B9BCA-FFBD-4A4F-ABF0-9E4227393230 1236