Richmond City Council
January 20, 2026

January 20, 2026

Department

DATE: January 20, 2026
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).

This item was continued from the December 16, 2025,
and January 6, 2026, meetings.

AGENDA
REPORT
732

January 20, 2026

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

733

January 20, 2026
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 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 community- based organizations. These programs operated across 120 sites in Richmond and neighboring communities, including schools, parks, libraries, community centers, and nonprofit offices.

734

January 20, 2026
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).

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.

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 individual s served. 735

January 20, 2026
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, gender- responsive, and culturally competent approaches.

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. 736

January 20, 2026
 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.

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.
737

January 20, 2026

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.

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 high- quality 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:

738

January 20, 2026
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

739
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
Evaluation
Report
FY 21–24
740
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
741
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
T ypes 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
742
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
743
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
744
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.

A
dministered 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-of-
school 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 encounters1 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.
1 745
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, community-
informed 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 invest-
ment in Richmond’s children and youth-serving
system, enabling organizations to deliver impact-
ful, culturally relevant services. Continued
improvements in systems coordination, grantee
support, and strategic communication—alongside
sustained flexible funding—will be key to maxi -
mizing RFCY’s long-term impact.
2 746
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 fund -
ing through the Richmond Fund for Children
and Youth (RFCY) to various organizations serv -
ing 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 find-
ings 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, trauma-
informed, 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.
3 747
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.
4 748
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 RFCY-
funded 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 eval -
uation plan development). During the evaluation
planning phase, WestEd hosted listening ses -
sions 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 collabo -
rated 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 admin- istered 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 corre - sponding 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
5 749
RFCY
Implementation
Summary
RDCY first awarded
grants on July 1, 2021.

E
ach 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 orga -
nizations 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, infrastruc -
ture 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 pret -
ty much impossible
to continue to pay
for everything your -
self, especially as
your goals continue
to grow and as the
amount of people
you’re helping contin-
ues to grow.”
—Program Staff
6 750
Program Reach
and Coverage
The RFCY has funded 56
programs that operate
across 118 different sites.

P
rogram 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 cen -
ters, social service providers, and offices. Sites
outside of Richmond include 5 parks, 8 desti -
nations 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 popu-
lation 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 pro -
grams 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 program -
ming. 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 chil -
dren 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 fol -
lowing 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 mid -
dle school students but also high
school students and year round.”
—Program Manager
12,3650
Population Under Age 18
Figure 2. Map of
RFCY Sites
7 751
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 ser-
vices, 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-En-
glish, some Arabic) Youth Peer
Support staff to support in au -
thentic youth engagement and
program leadership, especially to
help address the language bar -
riers 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 demo -
graphics of participants in RFCY-funded programs
mirror that of Richmond’s overall population
(Figure 6). Many programs were intentional in pro-
viding 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
8 752
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 wrap -
around 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 import -
ant capacity-building work to document our
highly effective curriculum will provide pro -
gram 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) com-
pared 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, dis -
trict 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 pro-
grams, but we also work at hous-
ing sites, clinics, community cen-
ters. So we’re really reaching youth
in a lot of different settings.”
—Program Director
100 0
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
9 753
Serving Children
and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations
The majority of program sites are easily acces -
sible via Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
(AC Transit) buses and Richmond’s public shut -
tle 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 neigh -
borhoods, 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 approxi -
mately 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
10 754
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 expan -
sion 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 some -
thing 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
11 755
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 par-
ents and the youth into morphing
us into something that they real-
ly want to come to and share with
their friends and family.”
—Program Founder
“The administration at all of the
schools were excited and ex -
pressed 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
12 756
Reducing Service
Gaps
RFCY supports a diverse array of
programs that address critical
service gaps in Richmond.

O
ver 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 intercon -
nected 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 sup -
ports, group programming, and internships and
to address the basic needs of children and youth.

While each grantee organization receives fund -
ing for a specific program, the RFCY’s flexibility
allows grantees to spend funds in ways that are
responsive to the community’s needs. For exam-
ple, 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 indi-
vidualized, one-on-one support. From adapting
program models to shifting staff roles and incor-
porating youth feedback, grantees emphasized
the importance of flexibility—especially in the
evolving, post-pandemic context.
“Because of this funding, our cli-
nicians can more flexibly ad -
dress the needs of the student,
the school faculty, and promote
a more supportive and trauma-in-
formed 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 partici -
pants in foundational skills such
as financial management,
13 757
public speaking, and navigation of the legal
system. Through these supports, programs facili-
tated 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 infor-
mation on how to save money at the grocery store.”
Parents/guardians were interested in program -
ming 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).

Education-
Related Services
Counseling or
Other Mental
Health Services
Housing
Assistance
Medical or
Dental Care
Transportation
Tickets or Passes
Work-Appropriate
Clothing or
Work-Related
Equipment
Food Assistance Childcare
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%). 14 758

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. 15 759
Programs by
Priority Area
Programs were funded under one of six prior -
ity 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 manage -
ment.5 Although each program was funded under
a single priority area, many grantees offered pro-
gramming that crossed multiple priority areas.

See Appendix D for a complete list of funded pro-
grams 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
16 760
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
17 761
• 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 mind -
fulness 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 les -
sons 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.
18 762
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
19 763
• 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 par -
ticipate in its program, which consisted
of three components: team-building
field trips, a yearlong career develop -
ment academy that provides training
and project-based work experience,
and a community day. This program is
a career-building opportunity, particu -
larly 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 transporta -
tion, we’re able to fund meals, we’re able
to fund materials and make it possible.”
20 764
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 pro -
vided 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 full-
day summer learning and enrichment programs
that were free to participants. Six programs oper-
ated throughout the year, providing consistent
opportunities for children and youth. Programs
included a variety of activities, including tutor -
ing, 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 avail-
able 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
21 765
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.”
22 766
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 vio-
lence 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 after-
school 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 grant -
ees 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 pro-
viders 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 multigenera -
tional 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 opportu -
nity to do better.”
23 767
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 hous-
ing, 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 pro -
viding computers to first-year college students.

RFCY programs were intentional about deliver -
ing culture- and language-specific services to
overcome traditional barriers to access in mar -
ginalized 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 certifi-
cates 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 ambas-
sadors 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 veg-
etables from local farmers’ markets.
24 768
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 tangi-
ble resources for children, youth, and families.

The five funded programs within this service
area provided financial wellness and home -
ownership 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 prog-
ress toward home ownership. Workshops
explored budgeting and credit manage-
ment 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 exper-
tise to host a workshop explaining the
connection between two seemingly dis-
parate financial decisions—purchasing
one’s first car and future homeown -
ership: “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 obtain-
ing 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.
25 769
Assessing the
Quality of Funded
Programs
Programs funded by RFCY
are expected to provide high-
quality 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.
26 770
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 grant-
ees 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 pro -
grams 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 partic -
ipants indicated negative experiences in their
programs. While these responses represent a
minority, they are important indicators of areas
where program improvements may be neces -
sary 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 interper -
sonal challenges within program environments.

Both neutral and negative ratings raise import -
ant questions about how youth are experiencing
programs and what factors influence their expe-
rience 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.
27 771
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 sat-
isfaction with a range of programmatic aspects,
including the loving and respectful commu -
nity, 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 pro -
gram 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 par-
ticipant 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 priori -
tize 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 inter -
ests and talents.

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

Some grantees focused on diverse hiring prac -
tices 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 AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree 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 omis - sion of “N/A” responses
28 772
Caring Adults
Most RFCY grantees fostered strong, support -
ive 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 enrich -
ment 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 indi -
cated 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 offer -
ing a wide range of opportunities that promote
belonging. These included team-building activ -
ities, 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 AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree 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.

T here is an adult at this program who
cares about me.

T here is an adult in this program who
b elieves I will become a success.

T here is an adult in this program who
a lways wants me to do my best.

I can talk to adults at this program
a bout 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 AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree 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. 29 773
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 commu -
nity 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 belong -
ing in their programs (Figure 16).

Additional Participant
Experiences
In addition to the four areas of performance
described in the previous section, the partic -
ipant 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 respon -
dents. 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 AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree 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.
30 774
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 partici -
pants formed meaningful
connections within support -
ive, nurturing environments.

Youth had opportunities to explore their identi -
ties, 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 collab-
oration, 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 environ -
ments. 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 expe-
riences, 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, knowl -
edge, 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 sup -
port—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 interven -
tion, 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 pro-
gram really pushes
me and encour-
ages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for
the Performing Arts
participant, age 16
31 775
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 con -
fidence. Many grantees used project-based
learning approaches to engage youth in real-world
challenges—such as identifying ways for commu-
nities to have access to clean water—that required
critical thinking and creative problem-solving.

Other initiatives offered comprehensive aca -
demic 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 pur-
suits. Some youth also developed leadership skills
by mentoring younger peers, reinforcing their own
learning in the process. Across programs, partici-
pants 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 experi -
ences 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, communica-
tion, 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 deci -
sions about their futures.
“You can express
yourself and you
can be yourself.“
—Community
Violence Solutions
participant, age 16
32 776
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
33 777
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 Richmond-
based 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 pro-
gram has helped
me so much”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 16
34 778
Grantee Approaches
to Assessing and
Improving Program
Quality
Grantees actively
measure impact and
participant learning
Many grantees administered their own partic -
ipant 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 stra-
tegic 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 engage -
ment is essential to building high-quality
programs. They found that authentic engage -
ment goes beyond outreach—it involves actively
including youth and families in shaping the future
of their own communities.

Grantees indicated that clear, consistent com -
munication 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 adap-
tation 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 togeth -
er towards the same goal, we
demonstrate how beautiful and
heartwarming are the people of
our community. Working togeth-
er allows us to help each other
and the children of this commu-
nity, which are the future of this
beautiful community.”
—Grantee Report
RFCY-funded programs are strengthened by the
support of formal partners, local businesses, vol-
unteers, 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
35 779
Multiple grantees described
that schools were particular -
ly committed to supporting
RFCY-funded programs, which
helped facilitate smooth
program implemen -
tation: “The admin -
istration at all of the
schools were excited
and expressed that
they had been wait-
ing 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 district-
level 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 en -
sures that the programs … tru -
ly reflect their needs and aspi -
rations. Community voices are
essential for creating relevant and
impactful programs.”
—Grantee Report
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emo-
tions and know
that they’re in my
control.”
—Desarrollo Familiar
Participant, age 16
36 780
RFCY Grants
Support
Programs’
Organizational
Capacity and
Sustainability
RFCY plays a vital role in
strengthening organizational
health and supporting
sustainable program models.

W
hile 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
37 781
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 volun-
teer 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 imple -
ment programs that required partnerships
between at least two organizations. In addi -
tion, many grantees funded as “single agencies”
partnered with schools, businesses, and com -
munity 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 effec -
tively and sustainably address challenges, such
as participant recruitment and program access.

These collaborations also helped grantees over-
come 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+ train -
ing. This collaboration helped ensure that staff were
better equipped to offer inclusive, affirming sup-
port 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 popu-
lations and increase our capaci-
ty to provide the highest-quality
programming for Richmond stu-
dents 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 follow -
ing fiscal year. Funding for FY 2025-28
shifted to a 3-year grant that does not
require grantees to reapply each year.
38 782
“Effective communication and
collaboration among stakehold-
ers—including school district of-
ficials, teachers, parents, and
mentors—are vital. ... Addressing
communication gaps and foster-
ing 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 collabo-
rative 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 fund-
ing. 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 fund-
ing for it. ... And that team that was
one and a half people at the begin -
ning, is now a team of five people”
—Program Director
Small and Emerging
Program Highlight
Richmond Freedom School was estab -
lished 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 part-
nership 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
39 783
Grantees’ Fiscal Health
and Sustainability
Multiyear RFCY funding
supported grantees’
planning and growth
The ability to receive RFCY funding over multi -
ple years enables grantees to develop long-term
business strategies and allocate resources
toward securing additional funding. Many grant-
ees 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 orga-
nizational 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 oppor-
tunities. 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 fluctua-
tions in income streams.”
“I don’t think there’s another part-
ner out there who provides a multi-
year 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 fu-
ture, 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 grant-
ees 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 braid-
ing 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 chil-
dren and youth who attend other schools. RFCY
funding helps bridge these gaps, ensuring more
equitable access to services across the commu-
nity. Furthermore, emergent programs were able
to leverage this data to secure additional funding.
40 784
“When we tell people from dif -
ferent 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
41 785
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 chal-
lenges, 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 sup-
port 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 organiza -
tion 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 trans-
portation 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 chal -
lenge due to family vacations, summer sports,
and other scheduling conflicts. One grantee work-
ing primarily with families noted the difficulty
of engaging parents, explaining that “guardians
often have numerous other commitments in addi-
tion 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 orga-
nizations 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%
42 786
information. Partners also played a key role in
overcoming participation barriers—offering trans-
portation support or helping with scheduling to
increase accessibility.
“At the beginning of the project
... we faced significant challeng-
es with youth recruitment and at-
tendance … due to staffing con-
straints and limited partnerships
for recruiting young adults for our
workshops. … Our initial strug -
gles 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 part-
nering 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 lim-
ited 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 volun-
teer 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 pro -
posed school] for most of the ac-
ademic school year. Despite our
immediate efforts to submit the
required paperwork, the response
was delayed in coming, so we fo-
cused our efforts on serving stu-
dents at [another school]. We took
the opportunity to implement cur-
riculum 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
43 787
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 sup -
port external programming. While grantees had
little control over school staffing shortages or
transitions, strong communication with school
partners helped mitigate disruptions and mini -
mize 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 ex-
periencing, 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 essen -
tial 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 administra-
tive tasks required to run a non-
profit, while also finding time or
assistance for grant writing to se-
cure 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 sys-
tems, 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 sup -
port 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%
22%Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Figure 17. Grantee’s Overall Satisfaction With
RDCY (N = 37)
44 788
The majority of grantees indicated that RDCY
staff were valuable partners in their work (76%),
RDCY staff provided helpful guidance and feed -
back (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 encoun -
tered 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 inten -
sive 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, express-
ing 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 Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree 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) 45 789
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 capacity-
building 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.
46 790
Enhance
Communication and
Responsiveness
Improve clarity and consistency in communica -
tion 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 disrup-
tions 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 pro-
gramming 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.
47 791
Conclusion
The RFCY has made a
significant, measurable impact
on Richmond’s children,
youth, and families in its
first three funding cycles.

B
y investing over $9.1 million across 56 pro -
grams 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 organiza-
tions, and facilitated high-quality programming.

The evaluation findings highlight RFCY’s suc-
cess 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 suc -
cess, mental health, leadership, and life skills.

Although challenges persist, the commitment of
grantees, community partners, and the RDCY to
continuous improvement is evident. With sus -
tained 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.
48 792
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, prog-
ress 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 eval-
uation 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 per -
formance 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%
49 793
Listening Sessions With
RFCY Grantees
In October 2023, WestEd facilitated two listen -
ing 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 pro -
grams 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 high-
quality programming. To define and measure
program quality, WestEd created a community-in-
formed list of universal performance measures.

A performance measure is a number or a quan -
tity 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 perfor-
mance 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 grant -
ees 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 pro-
grams completed the grantee survey. WestEd
presented pilot results to the RDCY and the RFCY
Oversight Board and made revisions to the par -
ticipant surveys and the grantee survey based
on feedback received.
50 794
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
W
estEd learned from community part -
ners, including youth and grantees,
through holding listening sessions, codesigning
evaluation instruments, and collectively inter -
preting 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 part-
nered 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 mem -
bers 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 com-
munity-based programs funded by RFCY. The
evaluation plan was initially shaped by a team
of five youth data collectors nominated by RFCY-
funded 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 administer -
ing 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.
51 795
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 chil -
dren 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 partici -
pants 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 com -
posed 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 lis-
tening 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 par-
ticipant 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 admin-
istered the youth experience survey during this
reporting period and shows which supplemental
modules were administered for each program.
52 796
Grantee Focus Groups
To understand RFCY implementation, WestEd
conducted six 1-hour virtual focus groups with
33 RFCY-funded program managers and execu -
tives. 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 sum -
marized 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 fund -
ing 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 pro-
gram outcomes and impact, but are subject to
reporting bias where grantees might only report
positive outcomes. The reports were systemati -
cally 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 sum-
marized 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 develop -
ment manager, director of advancement, county
director, and grant administrators.
53 797
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
54 798
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 55 799
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
56 800
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
57 801
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
58 802
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
59 803
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 60 804
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
61 805
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 62 806
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
63 807
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 64 808
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 65 809
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
66 810
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 67 811
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
FY 2021–24 Evaluation Findings
Prepared for Richmond City Council
812
Introduction
Key Achievements
Looking Forward
Agenda
813
Introduction
814
RFCY Theory of Change
815
Evaluation Methods
816
Evaluation Results
817
Summary of the RFCY
Over 9 million dollars
went to organizations
serving Richmond
children, youth, and
families.
818
RFCY at a Glance
819
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
820
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Practice Space, Youth Code Now, Scientific Adventures for Girls, Community Education Partnerships, RYSE 821
Funding Areas
Featured photos: Watershed Project Green Collar
Corps, Things That Creep, Richmond YouthWORKS
822
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
823
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
824
Funding Areas
825
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
826
10/14/2025 16
RFCY grantees had over 58,000
encounters with children and youth.
827
10/14/2025 17
Grantees served a racially and ethnically
diverse population of children and youth.
“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
828
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
829
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.
830
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
831
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
832
Widespread Reach
Equity-Focused Implementation
Accessible Services
Positive Youth Experience
Support for Organizations
Summary of Key Achievements
833
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
834
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.835
Alexis Grant
[email protected]
Questions?
Nicole Tirado-Strayer
[email protected]
836

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. 837

# 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 838

# 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.
839

# 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.
840

# 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.
841

# 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 842

# 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).
843

# 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.

844

January 20, 2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Martinez

Subject:

Restorative Process with the Mayor and the Richmond
Jewish Community
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of this action has yet to be determined, however, any associated costs will be
evaluated by City staff and incurred in compliance with applicable procurement policies and procedures.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

In light of recent social media posts reshared by the
Mayor that used and spread antisemitic ideas, the Mayor is taking proactive steps to address this mistake. In
addition to meeting with the Rabbi and leaders of Temple Beth Hillel and other Richmond Jewish leaders, he will
participate in an educational training focused on
antisemitism. This training will also be optionally available for city council members who wish to attend. The
initiative aims to guard Richmond against the national
increase in antisemitic speech and actions, including
violence, as well as the ways that it is used to divide coalitions that are dedicated to social progress, a vital part of Richmond's history and present. It also aims to build a trusting and collaborative relationship between the Mayor and the diverse Jewish community in Richmond
and to welcome city leadership to be part of this.

AGENDA
REPORT
845

January 20, 2025
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ACKNOWLEDGE the Mayor’s participation in an
antisemitism training led by trainers recommended by
Temple Beth Hillel leadership, offer City Council
members the option to attend voluntarily, DIRECT the
Mayor to meet with Rabbi Saxe-Taller at least two
additional times in the first quarter of the year, and
DIRECT the Mayor to issue a public apology at a City
Council meeting and in a local newspaper - Mayor’s
Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

This agenda item is proposed in response to recent events where the Mayor’s social media activity caused concern and harm within the Jewish community. By engaging in this training and inviting broader participation, the mayor aims to demonstrate a commitment to understanding, dialogue, and cultural education. This effort is a step toward healing and ensuring that all community members feel respected and valued.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None.
846

January 20,2026

City Council

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda (sponsor)
Councilmember Jamelia Brown (co-sponsor)

Subject:

Formal Censure of Mayor Eduardo Martinez for
Antisemitic Conduct and for Actions Inconsistent with the Duties and Standards of the Office
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on receiving this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Adopt a resolution of the Richmond City Council formally censuring Mayor Eduardo Martinez for antisemitic
conduct and for actions inconsistent with the duties and standards of the office. The content shared by the Mayor echoed widely recognized antisemitic tropes, including
collective blame and conspiracy narratives, and failed to distinguish between the actions of a government and
Jewish people as a group.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution formally censuring Mayor Eduardo
Martinez for antisemitic conduct and for actions
inconsistent with the duties and standards of the office - Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593)/
Councilmember Jamelia Brown (510-412-2050).

DISCUSSION:

AGENDA
REPORT
847

January 20,2026
To clarify, this is not censorship, this is a censure. Adding this to further clarify; to “censor” mean to remove, block, or interfere with the communication of another. To “censure” on the other hand, means “to find fault with and criticize as blameworthy”, according Merriam-Webster.com

Under Article III-A, Sec.2.a. of the Richmond Charter, the Mayor shall be “responsible for providing civic leadership”… “shall be concerned with the general development of the community and the general level of City services and activity programs and may develop and inform City residents of policies and programs which he or she believes are necessary for the welfare of the City”.

The Mayor of the City of Richmond is therefore entrusted with a unique leadership role that carries heightened responsibility to uphold the principles of inclusion, mutual respect, and the safety of all residents, and to avoid conduct that legitimizes or amplifies hatred or discrimination; and

Antisemitism is a well-documented and persistent form of hatred that includes conspiracy theories, collective blame, and the baseless attribution of violence or social harm to Jewish people or Jewish identity, whether explicitly or implicitly.

In December 2025, following a violent antisemitic attack, in Bondi Beach, Australia, targeting a Jewish religious celebration, in which 15 victims, the youngest, a 10-year-old and the oldest an 87-year old Holocaust survivor, were killed, Mayor Eduardo Martinez shared and amplified social media content that advanced conspiracy theories and generalized claims attributing responsibility for antisemitism and violence against Jews.

The content shared by the Mayor, in the aftermath of a deadly antisemitic attack, echoed widely recognized antisemitic tropes, including collective blame and conspiracy narratives, and failed to distinguish between the actions of a government and Jewish people as a group.

The 2024 antisemitic incidents have recently reached record highs across the United States. Locally, a survey conducted found that 42% of Bay Area Jews reported witnessing or experiencing antisemitism in the past year. Statewide, anti-Jewish hate crimes rose by 53 percent in 2023, according to the California Department of Justice.

The Mayor’s messaging further compromises safety of the Jewish community in Richmond and in the greater Bay Area.

Mayor Martinez has amplified antisemitic rhetoric in his LinkedIn account. He shared posts that promoted false-flag conspiracy theories and reposted messages tacitly supporting the October 7 Hamas terror attacks; the dissemination of such content by the Mayor of Richmond, in the aftermath of a deadly antisemitic attack, caused substantial harm, fear, and distress within the Jewish community of Richmond.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time the Mayor Martinez has caused substantial harm, fear, and distress within the Jewish community and undermined public confidence in the 848

January 20,2026
City’s commitment to protecting marginalized communities, by promoting false-flag conspiracy theories and reposting messages supporting the October 7 Hamas terror attacks.

Jewish community organizations, civil rights groups, faith leaders, and residents have unequivocally identified the Mayor’s actions as antisemitic in effect and have stated that such rhetoric contributes to an unsafe and hostile environment for Jewish residents.

Councilmembers have received thousands of emails from community members, community leaders, and elected officials from Contra Costa County and the larger Bay Area calling on the Councilmembers for action “for conduct that has substantially violated the public trust, caused demonstrable harm to members of the community, and appears inconsistent with the ethical and professional standards required of an elected official”.

The overwhelming theme of all the messages received by the City Council were that the Richmond community does not feel safe or secure under Mayor Martinez’s leadership and there is a need to take concrete steps to repair the harm and restore trust within the Richmond community, as listed below.

The City of Richmond has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to opposing antisemitism and all forms of hate, including through prior resolutions, public statements, and community initiatives.

This resolution is not to infringe on the Mayor’s First Amendment rights to free speech, including political speech, political critique of a government’s actions is not synonymous with, and must never be treated as, an endorsement of harm or violence against people; this resolution admonishes rhetoric that distorts or minimizes harm to any people and that such speech is incompatible with the responsibilities of municipal leadership.

The City Council can only express disapproval of the Mayor's conduct and dissociate the City from it, as authorized by the City Charter.

Although Mayor Martinez’s LinkedIn account is no longer publicly accessible and he has issued an apology, the harm caused by the original conduct has not been repaired and warrants formal accountability by the City Council.

Mayor Martinez has had reasonable notice of this resolution and an opportunity to be heard before its adoption. The City Council has considered Mayor Martinez’s response in deciding to adopt this resolution; and

1. Finds and declares that Mayor Eduardo Martinez’s continuous actions in sharing and amplifying the referenced content constituted antisemitic conduct, based on the nature, context, and impact of the material shared; 849

January 20,2026

2. Formally censures Mayor Eduardo Martinez for engaging in conduct that reinforced antisemitic narratives, caused harm to the Jewish community, and fell below the standards of care, judgment, and responsibility required of the Mayor’s office;

3. Unequivocally condemns the statements Mayor Martinez recirculated, following the Bondi, Australia massacre and disavows them on behalf of the City and the community it serves;

4. Unequivocally condemns antisemitism, including conspiracy theories, collective blame, and rhetoric that normalizes or excuses violence against Jewish people, and affirms that such conduct has no place in Richmond;

5. Calls upon Mayor Martinez to:

1. Publicly affirm, through official City channels, his understanding and accountability for the harmful antisemitic content of his online posts;

2. Undertake meaningful engagement, facilitated by a neutral third party, between the Mayor and impacted members of the Richmond Jewish community, that includes Temple Beth Hillel of Richmond as the only synagogue located in Richmond, and is focused on understanding and acknowledgement of harm done, and building a relationship of trust and accountability with leaders of the Richmond Jewish community, within the first calendar quarter of 2026;

3. Participate in a minimum of 16 hours of live training on antisemitism, including how antisemitism interacts with racism, by no later than March 31, 2026; given the sensitivity of the issue, it is essential that antisemitism training be led by an organization with a strong track record, clear expertise in antisemitism, and broad communal trust. Trainings must incorporate the goal of building understanding and confidence; therefore, the training modules should be selected in consultation with Richmond Temple Beth Hillel. Other Councilmembers should be invited to join in the training should they wish to join;

4. Take the time to reflect on his actions and honestly analyze if he is able to continue leading our city fairly and equitably for all of our residents.

6. Calls on all City Councilmembers to exercise heightened care in public communications and to recognize their responsibility not only for statements they issue, but also for content they knowingly share or amplify, especially during times of crisis or violence and the real-world consequences such content can have on vulnerable communities.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution
850

Reso. No. _____

RESOLUTION NO. ______-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,

CALIFORNIA, FORMALLY CENSURING MAYOR EDUARDO MARTINEZ FOR

ANTISEMITIC CONDUCT AND FOR ACTIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DUTIES

AND STANDARDS OF THE OFFICE

WHEREAS, under Article III -A, Sec.2.a. of the Richmond Charter, t he Mayor shall b e “responsible for providing civic leadership”… “shall be concerned with the general development of the community and the general level of City services and activity programs and may develop and inform City residents of policies and programs which he or she believes are necessary for the welfare of the City”; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Richmond is therefore entrusted with a unique leadership role that carries heightened responsibility to uphold the principles of inclusion, mutual respect, and the safety of all residents, and to avoid conduct that legitimizes or amplifies hatred or discrimination; and

WHEREAS, antisemitism is a well -documented and persistent form of hatred that inc ludes conspiracy theories, collective blame, and the baseless attribution of violence or social harm to Jewish people or Jewish identity, whether explicitly or implicitly; and

WHEREAS, in December 2025, following a violent antisemitic attack, in Bondi Beach, Australia, targeting a Jewish religious celebration, in which 15 victims, the youngest, a 10 -year-old and the oldest an 87 -year old Holocaust survivor, were killed, Mayor Eduardo Martinez shared and amplified social media content that advanced conspira cy theories and generalized claims attributing responsibility for antisemitism and violence against Jews; and

WHEREAS, the content shared by the Mayor , in the aftermath of a deadly antisemitic attack, echoed widely recognized antisemitic tropes, including collective blame and conspiracy narratives, and failed to distinguish between the actions of a government and Jewish people as a group; and

WHEREAS, the 2024 antisemitic incidents have recently reached record highs across the United States. Locally, a su rvey conducted found that 42% of Bay Area Jews reported witnessing or experiencing antisemitism in the past year. Statewide, anti -Jewish hate crimes rose by 53% in 2023, according to the California Department of Justice. The Mayor’s messaging further compromises safety of the Jewish community in Richmond and in the greater Bay Area; and

WHEREAS, Mayor Martinez has amplified antisemitic rhetoric in his LinkedIn account. He shared posts that promoted false-flag conspiracy theories and reposted messages tacitly supporting the October 7 Hamas terror attacks; the dissemination of such content by the Mayor of Richmond, in the aftermath of a deadly antisemitic attack, caused substantial harm, fear , and distress within the Jewish community of Richmond

WHEREAS, and unfortunately, this is not the first time the Mayor Martinez has caused substantial harm, fear, and distress within the Jewish community and undermined public confidence in the City’s commitment to protecting marginalized communities , by promoting false -flag conspiracy theories and reposting messages supporting the October 7 Hamas terror attacks ; and

WHEREAS, Jewish community organizations, civil rights groups, faith leaders, and residents have unequivocally identified the Mayor’s actions as antisemitic in effect and have stated that such rhetoric contributes to an unsafe and hostile environment for Jewish residents; and

WHEREAS, Councilmembers have received thousands of emails from community members, community leaders, and elected officials from Contra Costa County and the larger Bay Area calling on the Councilmembers for action “for conduct that has substant ially violated the public trust, caused demonstrable harm to members of the community, and appears inconsistent with the ethical and professional standards required of an elected official”; and

WHEREAS, the overwhelming theme of all the messages received by the City Council were that the Richmond community does not feel safe or secure under Mayor Martinez’s leadership and 851

Reso. No. _____

there is a need to take concrete steps to repair the harm and restore trust within the Richmond community, as listed below.

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to opposing antisemitism and all forms of hate, including through prior resolutions, public statements, and community initiatives; and

WHEREAS, this resolution is not to infringe on the Mayors Fir st Amendment rights to free speech, including political speech, political critique of a government’s actions is not synonymous with, and must never be treated as, an endorsement of harm or violence against people; this resolution admonishes rhetoric that distorts or minimizes harm to any people and that such speech is incompatible with the responsibilities of municipal leadership; and

WHEREAS, the Council only has the authority by the City Charter to express its disapproval of the Mayor’s conduct and to disassociate the City from the conduct; and

WHEREAS, although Mayor Martinez’s LinkedIn account is no longer publicly accessible and he has issued an apology, the harm caused by the original conduct has not been repaired and warrants formal accountability by the City Council; and

WHEREAS, Mayor Martinez has had reasonable notice of this resolution and an opportunity to be heard before its adoption; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered Mayor Martinez’s response in deciding to adopt this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richmond City Council hereby:

1. Finds and declares that Mayor Eduardo Martinez’s continuous actions in sharing and amplifying the referenced content constituted antisemitic conduct, based on the nature, context, and impact of the material shared;

2. Formally censures Mayor Eduardo Martinez for engaging in conduct that reinforced antisemitic narratives, caused harm to the Jewish community, and fell below the standards of care, judgment, and responsibility required of the Mayor’s office;

3. Unequivocally condemns the statements Mayor Martinez recirculated, following the Bondi, Australia massacre and disavows them on behalf of the City and the community it serves;

4. Unequivocally condemns antisemitism, including conspiracy theories, collective blame, and rhetoric that normalizes or excuses violence against Jewish people, and affirms that such conduct has no place in Richmond;

5. Calls upon Mayor Martinez to:

1. Publicly affirm, through official city channels, his understanding and accountability for the harmful antisemitic content of his online posts;

2. Undertake meaningful engagement, facilitated by a neutral third party, between the Mayor and impacted members of the Richmond Jewish community, that includes Temple Beth Hillel of Richmond as the only synagogue located in Richmond, and is focused on understanding and acknowledgement of harm done, and building a relationship of trust and accountability with leaders of the Richmond Jewish community, within the first calendar quarter of 2026;

3. Participate in a minimum of 16 hours of live training on antisemitism, including how antisemitism interacts with racism, by no later than March 31, 2026; given the sensitivity of the issue, it is essential that antisemitism training be led by an organization with a strong track record, clear expertise in antisemitism, and broad communal trust. Trainings must incorporate the goal of building understanding and confidence; therefore, the training modules should be selected in consultation with Richmond Temple Beth Hillel. Other Councilmembers should be invited to join in the training should they wish to join;

4. Take the time to reflect on his actions and honestly analyze if he is able to continue leading our city fairly and equitably for all of our residents.

6. Calls on all Councilmembers to exercise heightened care in public communications and to recognize their responsibility not only for statements they issue, but also for content 852

Reso. No. _____

they knowingly share or amplify, especially during times of crisis or violence and the real-world consequences such content can have on vulnerable communities.

7. Directs that this Resolution be entered into the permanent official record of the City of Richmond and publicly posted and disseminated in accordance with City policy.

******************

***THE CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW****

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on January 20, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to Form:

Interim City Attorney

State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on January 20, 2026.

_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond

853

January 20, 2026

City Council

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (Sponsor)
Mayor Eduardo Martinez (Co-sponsor)
Councilmember Doria Robinson (Co-sponsor)
Subject:

Consultant Engagement for Community Input on
Polluters Pay Settlement Funds
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Cost of the consultant is estimated to be $150,000 and may not exceed $300,000.The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 105-24 on September 24, 2024, that
expressed City Council’s intention moving forward to
spend the funds received from Chevron in a manner that
does not increase the City’s dependence upon Chevron
tax revenues, but instead facilitates development of a
resilient and just local economy that is independent of the fossil fuel industry.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 105-24 on
September 24, 2024, that expressed City Council’s
intention moving forward to spend the funds received
from Chevron in a manner that does not increase the
City’s dependence upon Chevron tax revenues, but
instead facilitates development of a resilient and just local economy that is independent of the fossil fuel industry.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond will receive approximately $550
million over the next ten years from the Polluters Pay
Settlement, presenting a significant opportunity to
address historic harms and invest in the City’s long-term economic, environmental, and community well-being.

Given the scale and impact of these funds, it is critical to engage the community in shaping how this revenue is
invested.

AGENDA
REPORT
854

January 20, 2026
In alignment with Resolution No. 105-24, the framework
recommended here includes preliminary investment
categories for Large-Scale Economic Development,
Inclusive Economic Development, Community-Visioned
Projects, Investments in Essential Services and Public
Works, and City Staffing and Consultants, along with a
process for ongoing community governance and
accountability. These categories are intended as a
starting framework to guide community discussion. The
community engagement process would provide input to
the expenditure framework to ensure it reflects the needs and priorities of the residents.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DIRECT the city manager to engage a consultant to
collaborate with City staff, City Council, and community stakeholders to conduct community engagement and
gather input on a framework for the expenditure of new
General Fund revenues generated by the Polluters Pay
Settlement, with the consultant reporting back to the City Council by May 26, 2026 - Councilmember Claudia
Jimenez (510-620-6565)/Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-
620-6503) Councilmember Doria Robinson (510-620-
6568).

DISCUSSION:

In 2024, the City of Richmond successfully concluded negotiations with Chevron resulting in a landmark Polluters Pay Settlement that will provide $550 million in new General Fund revenue to the city over a ten-year period. This settlement represents a once in a generation opportunity to address longstanding community needs, invest in Richmond’s future, and advance environmental, economic, and social equity.

Recognizing the significance of this revenue, on September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 105-24 (Attachment 2), establishing guiding principles for the stewardship of the Polluters Pay Settlement funds. Central to this intent is advancing a Just Transition away from a fossil fuel–dependent economy toward a healthy, inclusive, and thriving economy for Richmond. The objectives include reducing the City’s dependence on Chevron by generating new tax revenue streams and supporting high- quality union jobs for Richmond residents; repairing harms to residents’ health and neighborhoods caused by Chevron’s operations, particularly in communities historically most impacted; protecting workers—especially those in affected industries and City employees—during an accelerating economic transition; and ensuring transparency and public accountability in how settlement funds are allocated and invested.

In alignment with these goals, City Council members are recommending the development of a preliminary expenditure framework organized around the following investment categories:

855

January 20, 2026

1.Large-Scale Economic Development: Investment in large-scale projects that would generate tax revenue and have the potential to create high quality union jobs with good benefits while strengthening and diversifying Richmond’s economy.

2. Inclusive Economic Development: Projects that support small to mid-sized businesses and build the skills of Richmond’s local workforce. This includes but is not limited to small business grants and job training.

3.Community Visioned Projects: Projects and programs directly proposed and developed by Richmond residents that provide direct benefits to Richmond residents and support a Just Transition. A community board would be established to develop criteria, solicit and prioritize projects, and ensure accountability and transparency in the execution of projects.

4. Investments in Essential Services & Public Works: Critical Infrastructure projects that demonstrably improve the health and quality of life of Richmond residents, along with emergency and climate resilience. This includes but is not limited to, a ‘Complete Streets' approach to pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and public transportation infrastructure, emergency fire, EMS and disaster response, flood mitigation, improvements to public parks, and make available renewable energy and efficiency upgrades.

5. City Staffing & Consultants: Increase staffing in necessary departments to execute the goals of the fund in order to strengthen, diversify and transition the City economy from fossil fuels and deliver high impact projects that improve residents' lives. As needed, seek the expertise of consultants to offer temporary and specific expertise on economic diversification, workforce development, and climate resilience.

In addition to these investment categories, City Council members emphasize that transparency, public accountability, and community governance are essential elements that must guide the use of Polluters Pay Settlement funds across all categories. This includes public involvement in shaping priorities, allocating funds particularly for community visioned projects and monitoring outcomes to ensure funds are used in alignment with Council intent and community expectations.

While these categories reflect City Council’s initial priorities, the proponents of this item recognize that meaningful community input is essential before adopting a final expenditure framework. Given the scale, duration, and transformative potential of the Polluters Pay Settlement, City Councilmembers propose directing the City Manager to follow the City’s procurement procedures to retain an experienced consultant to work closely with staff, City Council, and community-based organizations, particularly those part of the Make Polluters Pay Campaign to design and implement a robust, inclusive, and culturally competent community engagement process.

The feedback gathered through this process would inform refinement of the expenditure framework, identify specific project ideas within each category if it is possible, and establish ongoing accountability mechanisms prior to Council consideration and adoption. Initiating this process will help build public trust and ensure the Polluters Pay Settlement funds are stewarded in a manner that advances a just, resilient, and inclusive future for the City of Richmond.
856

January 20, 2026

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - Request For Proposal (Draft)
Attachment 2 - Resolution No. 105-24

857

1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Background:

The City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-24 on August 14, 2024 withdrawing the Polluters Pay Ballot Measure in exchange for agreement by Chevron Corporation to pay the City the sum of $550 million over a period of 10 years (the Settlement Funds). On September 24th, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No.105 -24, declaring its intention to allocate Settlement Funds to projects that will improve the quality of life for the City’s residents without exacerbating the City’s economic dependence on a fossil fuel economy.

In order to meet those goals, the City Council is proposing the framework for expenditure of the additional General Fund revenue from the Polluters Pay settlement.

Expenditure Goals:
● To create a Just Transition away from a fossil fuel economy, and towards a healthy, inclusive and thriving economy for Richmond;
● To decrease the City's dependence on Chevron, generating new tax revenue streams for the City and high quality union jobs for Richmond residents ● To repair the harm posed by Chevron’s operations on residents’ health and neighborhoods, particularly frontline communities and those most affected historically
● To ensure transparency and public accountability on how the funds are spent, including public involvement in allocating funds for community-visioned ideas ● To protect workers, especially those in impacted industries, and those who work for the City during the ongoing and accelerating economic transition

Intended Expenditure Categories:
● Large-Scale Economic Development: Investment in large-scale projects that would generate tax revenue and have the potential to create high quality union jobs with good benefits while strengthening and diversifying Richmond’s economy. ● Inclusive Economic Development: Projects that support small to mid-sized businesses and build the skills of Richmond’s local workforce. This can include but not be limited to small business grants and job training. ● Community Visioned Projects: Projects and programs directly proposed and developed by Richmond residents that provide direct benefits to Richmond residents and support a Just Transition. A community board would be established to develop criteria, solicit and prioritize projects, and ensure accountability and transparency in the execution of projects.
● Investments in Essential Services & Public Works: Critical Infrastructure projects that demonstrably improves the health and quality of life of Richmond residents, along with emergency and climate resilience. This includes but is not limited to, a 858

2 ‘Complete Streets' approach to pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and public transportation infrastructure, flood mitigation, improvements to public parks, and make available renewable energy and efficiency upgrades, . ● City Staffing & Consultants: Increase staffing in necessary departments to execute the goals of the fund in order to strengthen, diversify and transition the City economy from fossil fuels and deliver high impact projects that improve residents' lives. As needed, seek the expertise of consultants to offer temporary and specific expertise on economic diversification, workforce development, and climate resilience.

Community governance & accountability:

In accordance with the Intent Resolution 105-24 text which stated that the City Council should evaluate means for expenditures from the funds or funds to be “governed in a manner that is fully transparent and democratic, implementing community-led decision making to the maximum extent allowable under the City Charter”, an important feature of the proposed framework is ensuring community governance and accountability. Community oversight through an advisory board will support equity, transparency, and community alignment.

Project Goals:
● Robust community feedback on the proposed expenditure framework including community sourced proposals for projects.
● Presentation at City Council summarizing community feedback including common themes, priorities and projects, as well as proposed amendments to the proposed expenditure framework.

Scope of Work:
● Conduct 3-5 input sessions, in accessible locations so residents from all districts can meaningfully participate including interpretation/translation as needed. ● Create an online option to submit additional feedback and ideas ● Outreach to a broad group of stakeholders including community groups and labor unions, particularly in neighborhoods impacted by environmental pollution caused by the local refinery’s pollution- frontline communities, Black and Brown, and low- income communities.
● At engagement sessions, solicit feedback on the following ○ Detail projects, ideas, questions about the following expenditure categories:
■ Large-Scale Economic Development
■ Inclusive Economic Development
■ Community Visioned Projects
■ Investments in Public Works & Infrastructure
■ City Staffing & Consultants
○ Community governance & accountability
● Return to Council by May to present following publicly:
859

3 ○ Summary community feedback and identify common themes, priorities, and project ideas
○ Proposed Framework for adoption by City Council

Qualifications of contractor:
● Experience conducting and facilitating community engagement through listening sessions, workshops, etc.
● Experience serving as a liaison between local government, non-profit organizations, community members and labor
● Experience organizing, analyzing, and summarizing qualitative data ● Experience developing community engagement materials and conducting outreach to ensure wide participation
● Ideal for consultants to have experience working with Richmond communities,

Timeline
January Release RFQ for Consultant
Consultant to present community input plan to City Council

March Community input sessions

May Presentation on findings and proposed adoption of an amended Framework by City Council

860
861
862
863

January 20, 2025

City Council

DATE: January 20, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda

Subject:

Community Meetings to Gather Community Input on How
to Spend the Community Money; Chevron Settlement
Funds
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of implementing this directive will depend on the amount of staff time and resources required to plan,
schedule, and facilitate the community meetings, as well as any associated expenses such as venue
arrangements and outreach. These costs will need to be
absorbed within existing departmental budgets.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

September 24, 2024, agenda item P.2 Chevron
Settlement Fund Intentions. City Council gave direction to gather “input from the community, year-to-year”

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City Council gave prior direction to gather “input from the community, year-to-year”. The City should be asking for community input every year on how to spend the funds
received.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DIRECT the City Manager, or their designee, to schedule and lead a minimum of 6 community meetings each year,
all around the City in each district, to gather input from the community on how to spend The Community Money;
Chevron settlement funds, prior to the annual budget
meeting – Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593).

AGENDA
REPORT
864

January 20, 2025
DISCUSSION:

In September 2024 the City Council adopted a resolution and gave direction to gather “input from the community year-to-year”. The City Manager, or their designee, should schedule and lead a minimum of six (6) community meetings each year, all around the City, in each district and every part of the community. Meetings should be open to all Richmond residents. Provide the community input to City Council prior to each budget session each year.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None
865