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.
# 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
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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
# 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).
# 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.