Agenda — Richmond City Council, April 7, 2026 (part 7 of 7)

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Mental and Behavioral Health & Wellness
A. Core Need Overview
Mental health encompasses our emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing, affecting how we think, feel, and act. It plays a role in managing stress, relating to others, and making decisions. Factors
like biology, environment, family history, and life experiences influence mental health. Behavioral health involves how our actions impact our overall wellbeing. Engaging in unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, vaping, drinking, substance abuse, or poor diet negatively affects mental health. Mental & behavioral health needs were a central focus throughout the community engagement process expressed by youth, parents, community members and service providers.

Mental and behavioral health rose as a top concern for Richmond's children and youth evidenced by their shared insights and stories told in focus groups involving nearly 100 youth participants. High levels of stress due to poverty, bullying, racial discrimination, safety concerns, and exposure to violence and trauma significantly impact their mental well-being. Depression and anxiety are prevalent, exacerbated by the pandemic’s impact on learning and social interactions. The pandemic intensified mental health issues, causing social isolation and increased screen time. Children missed opportunities to develop social skills, affecting their ability to interpret body language and facial expressions while teens lost out on socializing with their peers as schools shut down. Social Isolation was repeatedly echoed by focus group participants and 200 survey respondents, with three out of four rating the negative impact of COVID-19 as "Very High and High." Other key impacts revealed by survey results show “Very High and High” rates resulting from poverty (86%), bullying (80%), learning loss (79%), general anxiety (78%), and racial discrimination (76%).

The 2024 California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) validates the findings from the Community Needs Assessment. A notable trend is the increase in fifth graders feeling "sad most of the time," at 25%. Nearly 40% of 11th graders and one-third of 7th and 9th graders frequently feel sad, with 15% considering suicide.5 Two major challenges emerged: increased awareness and education about mental health, and lack of access to mental health resources. Despite insurance coverage through Medi-Cal; children and youth face long wait times to get an appointment with a provider fueled by the shortage of mental health providers in the Richmond area. Over half of the survey respondents feel that the mental health needs of Richmond’s children and youth are not being adequately met, most of which is influenced by lack of resources to meet the high demand. Survey respondents and Visioning Community Event attendees highlighted three priority services: (1) Affordable 1:1 Mental Health Counseling (In-person or Virtual), (2) Access to Behavioral Health Services (e.g., anger management), (3) Programs addressing youth trauma and exposure to violence. 52024 RFCY Community Needs Assessment, p.17
1785
20 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL B. Key Performance Indicators
The following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are related to measuring performance and impact among Mental/Behavioral Health & Wellness programs, services and activities. The suggested KPIs serve as a guide for Applicants and subsequent Grantees who would be asked to identify which KPI’s they’ll be using to measure progress, outcomes and impact of their program. Grant applicants will be asked to include in their application data from their current programs that render similar information as described by the KPIs below.

Mental and Behavioral Health & Wellness Key Performance Indicators Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Access to
Behavioral Health
Services
Average wait time for an initial
appointment;
Access to Insurance
Reduction in wait time from
referral to first
appointment; number of
families being served that
have insurance and number
of people assisted in
obtaining insurance
Fewer than # days specified
in indicator; ensure % of
families being served have
insurance and assist at least
# families annually in
obtaining insurance to
access services
Service Quality &
Effectiveness
Client satisfaction score;
Percentage reduction in
symptoms
Average satisfaction rating
from surveys;
Reduction in symptoms of
anxiety, depression, etc.

Rating of # or higher;
% of clients report reduction
in symptoms
Parental and
Caregiver
Support
Number of workshops offered Increase in workshop
attendance and
participation
# workshops annually with
% attendance
Service Efficiency Session attendance rate Percentage of scheduled sessions attended by youth
Maintain an attendance rate
of % or higher
Service Efficiency
and Community
Impact
Number of children and youth
enrolled from priority
populations & high poverty
neighborhoods
Percentage increase in
program enrollment
% annual increase in
enrollment
Community
Partnerships
Number of partnerships with
schools and community
organizations
Increase in collaborative
projects and referral
networks
Establish or strengthen at
least # partnerships annually
1786
21 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Engagement and
Retention
Engagement Rates;
Retention Rates
Percentage of youth actively
engaged over a period;
Percentage of youth who
remain for the intended
duration
Specific target to increase
engagement; Maintain or
increase retention rates
Addressing
Mental Health
Stressors (Cite
stressors the
service addresses
e.g. sadness,
depression,
anxiety).

Poverty-Related Stress;
Bullying and Discrimination
Number of families receiving
assistance;
Number of anti-bullying
programs implemented
Increase in financial aid
applications and approvals;
Reduction in reported
bullying incidents
Pre-and-Post Participant and Parent Evaluative Surveys
The Key Performance Indicators are informed and measured by the evaluations of youth who have participated in a program or activity and their parent or caregiver evaluation of the impact the program or activity has had on their child/youth. These evaluations include a pre-survey gathering information and expectations of the youth prior to participating in the program and a post-survey as to how helpful they found the program and the difference it has made. The same is asked of parents or caregivers. Examples of pre and post evaluative surveys for youth and parent or caregivers are presented in Appendix A. 1787
22 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL C. Visioning Ideas for Children and Youth Programs
Ideas evolved from the “Community Visioning Session” with over 70 community members participating that included youth, parents, grandparents and caregivers along with service providers focusing on three major areas of: Mental/Behavioral Health, Learning Needs, Safety, Community & Belonging. Ideas were also gathered from survey respondents and Key Informant Interviews. The table below categorizes the kinds of services that community members feel are or would be helpful to address mental and behavioral health needs of children and youth.

Mental and Behavioral Health and Wellness Programs
Envisioned by Community Members
Category Service Description
Increased
Collaboration with
Schools
Collaboration with Schools Community members want increased collaboration between community organizations and schools to
provide mental health and supportive services,
particularly to increase support and improve
treatment of LGBTQIA+ students.

Therapy Services Individual, Group, and Virtual
Therapy;
Parent Education and
Behavioral Health Training
Community members would like access to individual
therapy, group therapy, and free virtual therapy
sessions to support their mental health needs inside
and outside of school;
Community members are interested in education,
classes, and training for parents on behavioral health
to better support their children.

Trauma-Informed and
Culturally Competent
Therapy
Trauma-Informed and
Culturally Competent Therapy
Community members would like therapy that is
trauma-informed and culturally competent,
addressing issues such as self-harm and the impact of
stereotypes, both inside and outside of school.

Incentives for Programs
and Services
Incentives for Participation Community members would like incentives to encourage participation in mental health programs
and services.

All Priority Populations who participated in the community engagement process highlighted the need for more programs promoting mental and behavioral health, especially access to 1:1 counseling or therapy sessions.
1788
23 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Physical Health & Wellness
A. Core Need Overview
The physical well-being of children and youth in Richmond is significantly influenced by sSocial Determinants of Health (SDOH). These determinants include the conditions in which people live, learn, work, and play, which impact a wide range of health outcomes. Access to quality healthcare, safe and healthy outdoors, safe neighborhoods, and healthy food is vital for maintaining good health. In Richmond, many children grow up in neighborhoods facing significant challenges such as exposure to gun violence, pollutants, and a lack of safe recreational spaces. These adverse conditions fuel constant stress that subsequently affects physical development and cognitive growth.

The Childhood Opportunities Index (COI) highlighted in the 2024 Community Needs Assessment reveals that 45% of children and youth live in areas of concentrated poverty, and 37% live at 200% below the federal poverty level. Poverty is a significant social determinant of health. The COI measures various factors affecting health, including pollution, healthy environment, safety-related resources, and healthcare access.

Neighborhoods with "Very Low and Low" COI ratings indicate poor opportunities for achieving physical well-being shown by high incidences of negative health outcomes.

Community engagement through the CNA process demonstrated a significant need for better access to healthcare services and resources. Richmond is designated by the state Department of Health as a Medically Underserved Area (MSU) with shortages in primary health, mental health, and dental health professions. It further validates why access to services that treat and foster physical health is identified as a high need among the 400 voices heard throughout the community needs assessment process.

Two major areas of need emerged in the community feedback.

Firstly, there is a strong interest within the Richmond community in finding ways to live more healthily. 90% of survey respondents rate the need for affordable healthy foods as very high, and 8% indicate a high need for food banks and vouchers. Additionally, 86% felt there was a very high need for fitness and nutrition programs for youth, and 84 % expressed a need for outdoor activities like hiking, gardening, and camping. Youth expressed a desire to be more active outside but often feel unsafe in their neighborhoods, a concern shared by parents, grandparents, caregivers and service providers.
1789
24 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL B. Key Performance Indicators
The following Key Performance Indicators are related to measuring performance, outcomes and impact for Physical Health & Wellness programs, services and activities. These KPIs serve as a guide for Applicants and subsequent Grantees in identifying which KPI’s they’ll be using to measure progress, outcomes and impact for their program. If data from current programs render similar information as described by the KPIs below, applicants will be able to submit the data as part of their grant application.

Physical Health & Wellness Programs Key Performance Indicators Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Nutritional
Education and
Food Justice
Improvement in Eating Habits
and Food Security
Improvement in
participants' nutrition
knowledge and percentage
of households reporting
food security
% of participants
demonstrate improved
knowledge; Achieve % food
security in participating
households
Community
Health Access
Healthcare Access and
Reduction in Barriers;
Access to Insurance
Increase in healthcare
services accessed by target
populations in high poverty
neighborhoods; and
decrease in transportation,
language, and access
barriers;
Number of families being
served that have insurance
and number of people
assisted in obtaining
insurance
Increase the # of services
accessed by target
populations in high poverty
neighborhoods by % in three
years; Reduce barriers by %
within three years;
Ensure % of families being
served have insurance and
assist at least # families
annually in obtaining
insurance to access services
Secondly, access to clinics, urgent care, and drug awareness programs, especially those centered on the rise in vaping and the concerns over the fentanyl crisis, was of significant concern. Although most children and youth are insured through Medi-Cal, there are long waits to see specialists. Co-pays for urgent care are often unaffordable for low-income families. 86% of survey respondents expressed a very high need for accessible free clinics and walk-in centers without long wait times. Older youth favor the idea of being able to independently seek services and physical health-related activities on their own.

Overall, the Richmond community emphasized the importance of addressing physical health needs through improved access to resources and services. In addition, they hope to see the many physical health-oriented programs currently being offered by RFCY Grantees both continue and increase, especially at the neighborhood level.
1790
25 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Outdoor
Activities
Access outdoor activities in
healthy environments.

Number of programs
offered;
Number of participants in
outdoor activities;
Retention rates of
participants completing
programs requiring more
than one session
Increase in programs
offered by % annually.

Increase in participants by %
annually.

Increase in completion rates
by %
Sports,
Recreation,
Summer Camps
Physical Activity and
Participation Levels
Increase in physical activity
among participants &
number of participants in
programs;
Retention rates of
participants completing
programs requiring more
than one session
Increase physical activity by
% annually; Increase sports
participation by % annually
Increase in completion rates
by %
Basic Needs
Fulfillment
Fulfillment of Basic Needs Percentage of clients
reporting basic needs (e.g.,
shelter, food, rent, utilities)
& receiving Information &
Referrals
# of clients reporting basic
needs & % of clients
receiving Information &
Referral to address needs
# services provided to
address needs
Chronic Disease
Prevention
Enrollment in Chronic Disease
Prevention
Number of programs
offered;
Number of participants in
prevention programs
Increase enrollment by %
and retention by % annually
Healthy
Lifestyles: Food,
Nutrition, Drug
Prevention &
Awareness
Enrollment in Healthy Lifestyle
Programs.

Number of programs
offered;
Number of participants in
programs and activities;
Retention rates of
participants completing
programs requiring more
than one session
Increase in programs
offered by % annually
Increase in participants by %
annually.

Increase in completion rates
by %
Holistic Physical
Health and
Wellness
Overall Health Outcomes Improvement in key health
metrics (e.g., BMI, blood
pressure, weight loss)
Improve each health metric
by % annually
1791
26 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Pre-and-Post Participant and Parent Evaluative Surveys
The Key Performance Indicators are informed and measured by the evaluations of youth who have participated in a program or activity and their parent or caregiver evaluation of the impact the program or activity has had on their child/youth. These evaluations include a pre-survey gathering information and expectations of the youth prior to participating in the program and a post-survey as to how helpful they found the program and the difference it has made. The same is asked of parents or caregivers. Examples of pre and post evaluative surveys for youth and parent or caregivers are presented in Appendix A.

C. Visioning Ideas for Children and Youth Programs
Physical health and wellness ideas for suggested services and programs that emerged from the “Community Visioning Session” that had over 70 community members including youth, parents, grandparents and caregivers along with service providers are presented in the table below.

Physical Health and Wellness Programs Envisioned by Community Members Category Service Description
Drug Awareness,
Education, and
Prevention
Public Awareness Campaigns;
Reducing Drug Outlets
Warning labels and public awareness campaigns on
fentanyl and vaping;
Minimizing the number of tobacco/drug outlets in the
external environment
Parent Education and
Training
Support and Training Parent education, classes, and training on how to talk to their children about drugs and support children
who are using drugs
Sports and
Extracurricular Activities
Affordable Sports Leagues;
Social Clubs
Community members want to reduce costs for youth
to belong to sports leagues and pay for travel costs;
Community members desire promotion of hobby
clubs such as cooking, gardening, and knitting
Housing and Financial
Security
Housing Security;
Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Safe, accessible, and secure housing for families;
Provide Universal Basic Income (UBI)
1792
27 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Learning Needs
A. Core Need Overview
The scope of learning considered for the Community Needs Assessment spans from: early childhood, prekindergarten to post-secondary education and youth up to 24 years of age. Discussions about learning needs were prominent among focus group participants, survey respondents, key informants, and Community Visioning event attendees. Key learning benchmarks along this continuum were identified to assess whether children and youth are falling behind, indicating specific learning needs.

The West Contra Costa School District (WCCUSD) serves a diverse student population of 26,312 students across 54 schools. Families in the district speak more than 50 different languages, with 36% of students being English Language Learners (ELL). The district's minority enrollment is 90%, and 31% of students are economically disadvantaged.

Pandemic-related learning loss is a significant issue, with nearly 80% of CNA survey respondents indicating that COVID-19 has had a "Very High or High Impact" on children and youth in Richmond. Many youth attending focus groups shared their struggles with making up for lost time. Additionally, Richmond has the largest number of children in Contra Costa County, with more than half of preschool-aged children eligible for subsidized programs. However, childcare providers serve only 40% of eligible children, leaving 60% of needs for childcare being unmet.

A School Readiness Assessment by the West County First Five Center found that only 29% of WCCUSD kindergartners are prepared for school, with 44% partially ready and 27% not ready. This data, last updated in 2018, underscores the need for Universal Transitional Kindergarten (UTK) to prepare children for school.

Chronic absenteeism, defined as students missing more than 10% of instructional days, remains a challenge. In the 2022-2023 school year, WCCUSD had a chronic absenteeism rate of 32%, an improvement from the previous year's 42%, but still higher than the pre-pandemic rate of 17%.

English Language Learners (ELL) constitute 36% of WCCUSD students, with the majority speaking Spanish.

However, only about 40% made progress on the English Language Proficiency exam in 2023, down from 44% in 2022. Third-grade literacy and eighth-grade math proficiency are key benchmarks predicting future success, but both are below pre-pandemic levels. In 2023, less than a third (29%) of third graders met grade-level reading standards, and only 14% of eighth graders met grade-level math standards. 1793
28 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Significant disparities in academic achievement exist across racial/ethnic groups in WCCUSD. Only 20% of African American and 21% of Hispanic students met English Language Arts standards in 2022-2023, with just 9% and 12%, respectively meeting mathematics standards. Nearly half of the graduating class in 2023 was not considered prepared for college or a career, according to the College/Career Indicator (CCI).

In 2023, 65% of WCCUSD graduating seniors submitted a FAFSA, and 59% applied for Cal Grants, significantly lower than a decade ago. This highlights a lost opportunity for financial aid, particularly among the Priority Populations addressed by RFCY.

Graduation rates at WCCUSD have remained steady at 84-86% since 2018, except during the 2020-2021 pandemic year. However, groups at risk of not graduating with their peers include Foster Care Youth (40%), Youth Experiencing Homelessness (26%), Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Youth (19%), English Language Learners (29%), and Students with Disabilities (43%).

Overall, the learning needs of Richmond's children and youth are significant as demonstrated by the data and insights from over 400 individuals who participated in this needs assessment. Key areas of need emerged:
early childhood care and Pre-K programs, career and college preparation for high school students, the need for year-round programs with mentors, parental coaching, after and out-of-school programs, exposure to music, performing arts and art that advance learning, life-skills and provide homework support, summer jobs for youth and internships that expose youth to career opportunities. 90% of survey respondents cited educating parents on supporting children's learning needs as highly needed. 1794
29 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL B. Key Performance Indicators
The following Key Performance Indicators are related to measuring performance and impact among programs, services and activities addressing Learning Needs. This serves as a guide for Applicants and subsequent Grantees that would be asked to identify which KPI’s they’ll be using to measure outcomes and progress with their program. If applicants have data from current programs that render similar information as described by the Key Performance Indicators below, they would be requested to share this information as part of their grant application.

Learning Needs Programs Key Performance Indicators
Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Cultural
Relevance &
Accessibility
Multilingual Programs &
Translation Services
Numbers of programs
serving multilingual families;
Access to translation at
events & programs
Launch or expand # new
programs annually;
# of translation services
provided
Educational
Outcomes
Academic Performance and
Engagement
Percentage of students
meeting grade-level
benchmarks and regular
school attendance
% annual improvement in
performance; increase
attendance by % among
educational programs &
activities.

Parental Learning
& Support
Parent How-To Workshops and
Support Services.

Number and types of
programs offered;
Attendance rates in parent
workshops and events
Host # workshops per year
with % attendance;
Completion rates of multisession programs
College
Readiness
College Enrollment in prep programs
and rate of financial aid
application;
Number of programs
offered in career exploration
& readiness. Participation
and completion rates.
% increase in prep program
enrollment per year;
% of eligible students apply
for financial aid by (year);
Completion rates of multisession programs.
1795
30 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
College
Readiness
College Enrollment in prep programs
and rate of financial aid
application;
Number of programs
offered in career exploration
& readiness. Participation
and completion rates
% increase in prep program
enrollment per year;
% of eligible students apply
for financial aid by (year);
Completion rates of multisession programs
Career Readiness
& Jobs
Youth Mentorship, Internships,
and Employment
Number of programs &
youth with mentors;
Number of programs &
youth in internships;
Number of programs &
youth who secure jobs
Increase #s of programs &
enrollment by % annually;
# of youth attending & %
completing internships;
# of youth acquiring jobs & #
months employed
Early Childhood
Development
Early Childhood Program
Enrollment
Number of children enrolled
in early childhood programs
and number of families
participating in Universal
PreK (UPK) or aware of
services
Increase enrollment by %
annually and ensure % of
families are aware of or
participating in UPK services
Literacy
Programs
Programs in Reading & Writing. Number and types of
programs offered across all
ages to 24 years;
Attendance rates among
programs
Increase #s of programs &
enrollment/ participation by
% annually;
% of youth completing
multi-session programs
Community
Partnerships &
Volunteers
Partnerships with schools and
community organizations
Increase in collaborative
projects, volunteer tutors,
mentors and referrals to
learning resources
Establish and/or strengthen
# of partnerships
1796
31 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
STEM (Science,
Technology,
Engineering &
Math) &
Entrepreneurship Programs
Programs, activities and clubs in
STEM & Entrepreneurship fields.

Number of programs
offered. Attendance,
participation and
completion rates
Increase #s of programs &
enrollment/participation by
% annually;
% of youth completing
multi-session programs
Music,
Performing Arts
& Arts Programs
Programs, activities and clubs in
music, performing arts and art
programs.

Number of programs
offered. Attendance,
participation and
completion rates;
Number of events
showcasing talent (concerts,
plays, art shows)
Increase #s of programs &
enrollment/participation by
% annually;
% of youth completing
multi-session programs
Pre-and-Post Participant and Parent Evaluative Surveys
The Key Performance Indicators are informed and
measured by the evaluations of youth who have
participated in a program or activity and their parent or caregiver evaluation of the impact the program or
activity has had on their child/youth. These evaluations include a pre-survey gathering information and
expectations of the youth prior to participating in the program and a post-survey as to how helpful they found
the program and the difference it has made. The same
is asked of parents or caregivers. Examples of pre and
post evaluative surveys for youth and parent or
caregivers are presented in Appendix A.

C. Visioning Ideas for Children and Youth Programs
Ideas for suggested services and programs associated with Learning that emerged from the “Community Visioning Session” that had over 70 community members, including youth, parents, grandparents and caregivers along with service providers are presented in the table below. 1797
32 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Learning Programs & Initiatives Envisioned by Community Members Category Service Description
Life Skills Workshops Financial Literacy,
Entrepreneurship, Legal Rights
Life skills workshops on financial literacy,
entrepreneurship, and understanding rights and laws
Parenting Workshops Reading Support, Coping Skills,
Learning Needs
Workshops to teach parents how to help their
children read, learn, cope with bullying and screen
time, and address unique learning needs or special
support
After-School Programs Socialization, Snacks, Mentors,
Homework Help
After-school programs that offer socialization, snacks, mentorship, and homework assistance
Youth Employment and
Career Preparation
Internships, Job Opportunities,
Career Exposure
Create internships with City departments, job and
internship opportunities for justice-impacted youth,
career exposure for middle and high school students,
job shadowing, stipends for internships and job
training, and jobs for people experiencing
homelessness
Educational
Enhancement and
College Preparation
College Prep, STEM Programs,
Tutoring
College prep classes, guidance for career plans, more
STEM programs, academically centered
extracurricular activities, free tutoring, and promotion of the school pipeline
Community Schools and
Partnerships
Full-Service Community
Schools
Establish more full-service community schools
CBO and School
Collaboration
Partnerships with Schools More partnerships between community-based organizations and schools
Mentorship and
Leadership Development
Mentors, Leadership
Opportunities
Mentors for high school students and leadership
opportunities for youth
Environmental and
Nature Programs
Nature Engagement, Service
Learning
Programs to connect with nature and sponsor service
learning
Student Well-Being and
School Schedule
School Start Time, Internet
Access, Learning Styles
Later school start times for high school students,
availability of high-speed internet, and teaching to
different learning styles
Diversity and Inclusion in
Schools
Multi-Cultural Staff More multicultural staff at schools 1798
33 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Safety, Community & Belonging
A. Core Need Overview
Residents of Richmond express pride in their city, embracing its diversity and community spirit, while also recognizing its challenges. Safety is a significant concern, with 95% of survey respondents believing that youth worry about their safety in their neighborhoods. 75% think this fear has a high impact on their wellbeing, and 92% see a critical need for creating safe, quality spaces for youth aged 13 and older. Youth highlight varying safety levels across neighborhoods, the normalization of violence, a lack of safe public spaces, inadequate school safety, and the need for community policing without profiling.

In West Contra Costa County Unified School District, fewer than half of high school students feel safe at school. Despite a decrease in homicides to the lowest level in a generation, cumulative exposure to violence, particularly gun violence, remains high. Since 2013, 41% of the 2,300 gunshots fired in Richmond occurred within a half-mile of a school, mostly near elementary schools. Neighborhoods with lower median incomes experience more incidents, with some schools averaging six nearby shootings per year.

The 2021 National Community Survey indicates that while 73% of Richmond residents feel safe in their neighborhoods during the day, only 43% feel safe in commercial areas. This is lower than safety perceptions in 99% of communities surveyed nationwide. These perceptions are likely influenced by the fact that burglaries, vehicle thefts, robberies, and aggravated assaults have increased. Larceny theft and sexual assaults, however, have decreased.

Justice-impacted youth, defined as those at risk of or previously incarcerated, are a priority population for the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth. These youth, often from poor communities and disproportionately youth of color, report negative interactions with police, including concerns over the use of force. From 2018 to 2022, arrests by Richmond Police decreased by 58%, and use of force incidents fell by 23%. However, the use of force rate per 100 arrests has increased, particularly affecting Black and Hispanic males aged 18-39.

Belonging is crucial for children and youth, requiring appreciation for their identity without harmful stereotypes. Focus groups revealed that justice-impacted and LGBTQIA+ youth feel their needs are not adequately met. Disconnected youth (18-24 years old out of school and work) and youth experiencing homelessness face significant challenges. Richmond's unhoused population has increased from the past year of whom 14% are under 24 years of age. Students experiencing homelessness in WCCUSD are reported to have high rates of chronic absenteeism that hinder their academic performance. 1799
34 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Community centers offering enrichment programs and resources for parents are highly valued for fostering child and youth development. However, issues like waiting lists and transportation barriers limit participation. Affordable after-school programs, summer camps, and jobs for youth are also in high demand. At a Community Needs Assessment Visioning Event, participants expressed a desire for community events throughout the year to build a stronger sense of community across Richmond.

B. Key Performance Indicators
The following Key Performance Indicators are related to measuring performance and impact among programs, services & activities addressing Safety, Community, and Belonging. This serves as a guide for Applicants and subsequent Grantees that would be asked to identify which KPI’s they’ll be using to measure outcomes & progress with their program. If applicants have data from current programs that render similar information as described by the Key Performance Indicators below, they would be requested to share this information as part of their grant application.

Safety, Community, & Belonging Programs Key Performance Indicators Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Cross-Cultural
Relationships and
Community
Resilience
Community and Youth
Engagement
Number of initiatives
promoting cross-cultural
relationships within
neighborhoods or
community at-large;
Number of attendees
Implement # of initiatives
and achieve # attendance;
Create annual events that
draw % increase
Restorative
Justice & Justice
Impacted Youth
Programs
Justice Impacted Youth
Engagement
Number of Restorative
Justice programs offered;
Number of outreach efforts
& incentives to recruit
justice impacted youth &
families;
Number of attendees
# attending programs
% of completion rates of
multi-session programs
Creation &
Maintenance of
Safe Spaces for
Socializing
Safe Spaces for Youth to
Socialize
Number of safe spaces
created/maintained;
Number of hours & times
available
# of youth socializing at
center
# of youth among priority
populations attending (e.g.
multi-racial, cultural,
LGTBQ+AI, unhoused youth)
% of repeat visitors
1800
35 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Community
Policing and
Safety Programs
Safety and Community Policing Number of community
policing initiatives in
neighborhoods;
Number of police
relationship-building
activities;
Number of police initiatives
to make neighborhoods
safe;
Number of outdoor spaces
viewed as safe by
community members;
Number of community
member activities to
increase neighborhood
safety
# of initiatives in each area
and by neighborhoods;
# of attendees at
events/activities including
those sponsored by
Richmond Police
Department;
% change in perception of
youth feeling safe from
program evaluation surveys
and public surveys
Social Isolation
and Community
Engagement
Support Groups and Social
Activities
Number of activities &
support groups organized;
Number of attendees among
priority populations
# activities and participants
and % of priority populations
attending;
# of members of support
groups & % of retention
Bullying and
Violence
Prevention
Bullying Incidence Reduction
Activities & Support Groups
Number of reported bullying
and violence incidents in
schools and community
programs;
Number of programs and
activities to address bullying
including support groups;
Number of participants.
# activities and participants
and % of priority populations
attending;
# youth who report feeling
empowered as a result of
attending a support group;
Reduction of bullying and
violence incidents reported
by schools & youth
participants
1801
36 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

C. Visioning Ideas for Children and Youth Programs
Ideas for suggested services and programs associated with Safety, Community and Belonging that emerged from the “Community Visioning Session” that had over 70 community members including youth, parents, grandparents and caregivers along with service providers are presented in the table below.

Safety, Community, & Belonging Programs & Initiatives
Envisioned by Community Members
Category Service Description
Police and Community
Relationships
Conversations, Workshops, and
Relationship-Building Programs
Community members want to have conversations
with police, hold workshops, and participate in
programs for relationship-building with police
Peer and Community
Leadership
Peer Leader Groups;
Home-Owner Associations
(HOA)
Community members want to create peer leader
groups and/or youth neighborhood councils and
involve youth in decision-making;
Community members want to create Home-Owner
Associations to promote safe neighborhoods
Safety for Students and
Community
Safe Routes Community members seek to provide walking-toschool safety and safe routes to get to activities to and from school
Community Events and
Gathering Spaces
Community Events Community members desire more community events like National Night Out and family gatherings and
seasonal events to foster family traditions
1802
37 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Category Service Description
Community Events and
Gathering Spaces
Community and Recreation
Centers;
Sports Facilities
Community members want to increase the number of
community and recreation centers in neighborhoods;
Community members desire more sports facilities
with a focus on providing activities specifically for
girls. Additionally, they want to create designated
areas for girls' sports.

Recreational and Green
Spaces
Safe Gathering and Green
Spaces;
Walking and Biking Promotion;
Youth Connection Spaces
Community members desire more green spaces. They
also want to establish safe areas where youth and
families can gather;
Community members want to promote walking,
biking, and safe sidewalks;
Community members desire more spaces specifically
for youth to connect throughout various
neighborhoods to hang out and enjoy events
together.
1803
38 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Connective Supportive Services
A. Core Need Overview
Throughout the community engagement process, involving over 400 individuals, 3 overarching needs emerged: transportation, navigation support, and a two-generation approach to services.

Transportation is a critical issue for moving beyond poverty in Richmond. Many low-income families cannot afford reliable transportation or the costly repairs that come with car ownership. Public transportation schedules are often not conducive to balancing the demands of childcare, jobs, and after-school programs.

This may explain why only 10% of workers in Richmond use public transportation, while 63% drive alone.

Youth frequently mentioned that there are neighborhood centers and programs they would like to attend, but without reliable transportation, they cannot access these valuable resources. As a result, their opportunities for enrichment and personal development are limited.

Navigation Support is essential for helping families and individuals access social services, housing, education, and healthcare. Parents and grandparents highlighted the complexity and overwhelming nature of the eligibility criteria and application processes required to receive services. Each organization has its own set of requirements, making it a time-consuming task to track down necessary resources, determine eligibility, and provide the required documents. Participants at the Community Needs Assessment Visioning event emphasized the need for a city-wide universal application for health and social services to simplify this process and make it more accessible.

Two-Generation Approach (2Gen) involves supporting both children and their parents simultaneously to build family well-being. This approach is based on the premise that uplifting parents also uplifts children.

Two-generation strategies aim to build family well-being by intentionally working with children and the adults in their lives together. For instance, a center that offers socio-recreational activities and homework help for teens could also provide resume writing, job-hunting assistance, and financial literacy programs for parents. This holistic approach ensures the economic security of the entire family and promotes the wellbeing of every member. The 2Gen approach also includes support for grandparents raising grandchildren, recognizing the diverse family structures within the community. The “Five Guiding Principles of 2Gen” can be found in Appendix C.

When survey respondents were asked to rate how well Richmond is meeting the needs of its children and youth on a five-star scale, nearly 40% gave a one or two-star rating, while an equal number gave a threestar rating. 19% awarded four or five stars, resulting in an overall weighted average of three stars (2.7). This mixed response highlights the perception that while some progress has been made, significant gaps remain.
1804
39 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Community members emphasized the importance of
addressing these gaps through improved access to
transportation, simplified navigation of social services, and a holistic, multi-generational approach to programs and services. By focusing on these key areas, Richmond
can better support its children, youth, and families,
ensuring they have the resources and opportunities
needed to thrive.

B. Key Performance Indicators
The following Key Performance Indicators are related to measuring performance & impact among programs, services and activities addressing Connective Supportive Services. This serves as a guide for Applicants and subsequent Grantees that would be asked to identify which KPI’s they’ll be using to measure outcomes and progress with their program. If applicants have data from current programs that render similar information as described by the Key Performance Indicators below, they would be requested to share this information as part of their grant application.

Connective Supportive Services Programs Key Performance Indicators Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Navigation Service Utilization and
Navigation Success;
Accessibility of Services
Development of a live,
interactive Resource Guide
that CBO’s can populate.

Includes a dashboard and
apps for ease of use;
Number of Individuals
accessing services and
successful connections to
needed services;
Simplification of applications
for community based social
services;
Number of CBO volunteering
to offer the universal
application.

Number of individuals using
the application
Develop within 1 year.

Increase utilization rates &
successful connections by %
annually;
Create a task force of
Service Providers to identify
core application elements
among social services for a
“universal application” to
identify basic eligibility of
programs & services;
# of persons completing the
universal app;
# CBOs receiving
applications;
# and % of positive
outcomes;
Produce in 6 months
1805
40 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL Category Performance Measure Indicator Aim
Transportation Transportation Support
Programs
Number of transportation
supports/programs available
for youth that enable them
to participate in youth
programs, services &
activities;
Number of youth &
parents/caregivers who
report transportation needs;
Number and type of barriers
to transportation to youth
activities, events, programs
Create a Transportation
Work Group; identify &
assess all transportation
available for youth;
Identify barriers & ways to
increase access. Consider
funding ride-share vouchers;
Develop plan within 6
months to rectify barriers &
increase access
2Gen
Services/ Programming
Family Engagement &
Support
Number of programs that
uplift & support
parents/caregivers
economically;
Number of programs that
promote the health & wellbeing of parents/caregivers;
Number of intergenerational programs.

Number of parenting and
life-coach programs
# of attendees & recipients
of services that are
parents/caregivers of youth
participants;
% of attendees reporting
positive feedback on
evaluative surveys
Pre-and-Post Participant and Parent Evaluative Surveys
The Key Performance Indicators are informed and measured by the evaluations of youth who have participated in a program or activity and their parent or caregiver evaluation of the impact the program or activity has had on their child/youth. These evaluations include a pre-survey gathering information and expectations of the youth prior to participating in the program and a post-survey as to how helpful they found the program and the difference it has made. The same is asked of parents or caregivers. Examples of pre and post evaluative surveys for youth and parent or caregivers are presented in Appendix A. 1806
41 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

4. PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE RFCY FUNDING APPLICATIONS PROTOCOL C. Visioning Ideas for Children and Youth Programs
Ideas for suggested services and programs associated with Connective Supportive Services that emerged from the “Community Visioning Session” that had over 70 community members including youth, parents, grandparents and caregivers along with service providers are presented in the table below.

Connective Supportive Services Envisioned by Community Members Category Service Description
Navigation Services Navigation Assistance More help with navigation, including dashboards and social service navigators, to better understand where
to get assistance
Transportation Transportation Support Identified high need for transporting youth to and from jobs, sports programs, activities, events;
especially after-school. Proposed the idea of free rideshare vouchers for after-school activities, and more accessible public transit.
2Gen Approach Parent/Caregiver Support and
Intergenerational Programs
Grandparents expressed the need for more support in
either raising or assisting parents with raising
grandchildren.
1807
42 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

5. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: PROGRAM NARRATIVE QUESTIONS Following the 2020 Community Needs Assessment and the Development of the Strategic Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2021-2024, the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on January 1, 2021 for Direct Services in six Priority Areas. The RFP included guidance for organizations/agencies seeking to submit a grant application in the form of 15 questions/statements, templates and appendices.

The application narrative, in the form of questions/statements included in the January 2021 RFP is listed in the left column of the following table by each application component. The right column presents a suggested updated version of the application narrative. The updated version includes added application questions/statements, changes to the FY 2021 questions/statements, or the deletion of a question/statement. Please note that some of the FY 2021 questions/statements continue to be used in FY 2025 and going forward without any changes or modifications.

The left column cites the current RFCY Request For Proposals (RFP) process and the right column of the table includes a proposed updated and expanded version of the 2021 evaluation criteria. The changes and updates include:
• Terminology changes, such as “Organization” instead of “Agency,” as most applicants are not agencies but organizations. Use of “population your program serves” instead of “target population.” • Expanded several FY 2021 guidelines by asking for additional information. For example, added requirement for a description of the staff and partner diversity and any cultural competency training they have taken.
• Added suggested appendices for the 2025 RFP.
• Changed order of questions. For example, moved question 7 to the Background section, as partnership issues are addressed also in earlier questions.
• Deleted Question 8 in the Program Narrative dealing with Covid-19 as it is no longer necessary. • Changed dates for the Required Resources and Budget section. • Renumbered the questions.

I. Grant Application Narrative
1808
43 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

5. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: PROGRAM NARRATIVE QUESTIONS FY2021-24 RFP For Direct Services in Following Priority Areas January 1, 2021
Proposal Narrative
Strategic Investment Plan
FY 2025-28
Agency History and Capacity
Background 1a. Year Founded, Location, Annual Budget, Number of FTE Staff.
1b. Type of Grant: Single Organization, Collaboration,
Small & Emerging.

1. Briefly describe your agency. 2. Briefly describe your organization.

2. Describe your agency's experience providing the
services proposed in your application. Include
information on years of service in the community
being served, experience working with diverse
communities and youth, and any partnerships or
collaboration with other organizations or systems of
care.

3. Describe your organization's experience providing
the services proposed in your application. Include
information on years of service in the community
being served, experience working with diverse
communities and youth, and any partnerships or
collaboration with other organizations or systems of
care.

3. Describe the staffing plan for your proposed
program. Identify the person who will have primary
responsibility for managing the program and discuss
their experience managing similar projects and in
similar communities. Provide information on how
many people will be directly working on the project
and their qualifications to work effectively with your
target population.

4. Describe the staffing plan for your proposed
program. Identify the person who will have primary
responsibility for managing the program and discuss
their experience managing similar projects and in
similar communities. Provide information on how
many people will be directly working on the project
and their qualifications to work effectively with your
target population.

Consider Adding: Describe the diversity among the
staff assigned to the grant program and any cultural
competency training they have taken.

Consider Adding: Describe the diversity among your
partner(s) staff assigned to the grant program and
any cultural competency training they have taken.
1809
44 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

5. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: PROGRAM NARRATIVE QUESTIONS Program Design

4. Identify the population that will be served in your
program. How do you plan to recruit, engage, and
retain children, youth, and/or caregivers in your
services to reach your program’s goals? a. In
addition to responding to the prompt(s), also
complete the Demographics Table found in Appendix
B.

5. Identify the population that will be served in your
program. How do you plan to recruit, engage, and
retain children, youth, and/or caregivers in your
services to reach your program’s goals?
a. In addition to responding to the prompt(s), also
complete the Demographics Table found in Appendix
B.

Consider adding an Appendix that asks applicants
to answer: What percent of the participants reside
in concentrated poverty neighborhoods? (Consider
using Appendix D of the SIP Report as source
documents showing Very Low to High COI areas by
census tracts in Richmond and a GIS Map that shows
high poverty neighborhoods).

5. Describe the program and proposed services.

Provide information on the program design, type of
services, average length of participation, location of
services (include the defined boundaries for each
targeted neighborhood/geographical area), and how
services will be delivered.
a. In addition to responding to the prompt(s), also
complete the Activity and Operations Table found in
Appendix C.

6. Describe the program and proposed services.

6. What role will youth have in program design,
implementation and/or evaluation, if any? For
example, how will youth inform, consult, or
collaborate with staff?

7. What role will youth have in program design,
implementation and/or evaluation, if any? For
example, how will youth inform, consult, or
collaborate with staff?

7. Who are the other partners that will support the
program? Identify the roles, responsibilities and
functions of each partnership.

Moved question to the Background section, as
partnership issues are addressed also in earlier
questions (numbered as 1c).

8. Please discuss how your proposed program that you
are requesting funding for through this RFP has been
or will be impacted by COVID-19. What have been
the implications for the services you provide? How
has or will your organization address those issues so
that the program can continue to be offered?
Deleted. The question dealing with Covid-19 is not
relevant any longer.
1810
45 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

5. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: PROGRAM NARRATIVE QUESTIONS Outcomes and Impact

9. What are the needs that your proposed program is
designed to address (provide data)?
How will your program’s target population directly
benefit from the proposed services?

8. What are the needs that your proposed program is
designed to address (provide data)?
How will the population your program serves directly
benefit from the proposed services?
Rephrased question listed above.

Consider adding another section to Appendix C that
asks applicants to identify the Core Need their
program primarily addresses—more than 50%—as
outlined in the Five Core Needs of the Community
Needs Assessment and the Strategic Investment Plan.

10. Describe how your program will measure its
performance impact and achievement of outcomes.

What are the short-term outcomes, and what do you
anticipate as the long-term impacts? What are the
performance targets that will be met? How will you
know that your program is successful?

9. Describe how your program will measure its
performance impact and achievement of outcomes.

What are the short-term outcomes, and what do you
anticipate as the long-term impacts? What are the
performance targets that will be met? How will you
know that your program is successful?
Consider adding an Appendix that combines all of the
Key Performance Indicators cited in the SIP among all
Five Core Needs as an example of KPIs that RFCY
suggests applicants consider and-or adapt to their
program.

11. List your program’s annual outcomes and performance for the past 1 to 3 years. Explain any fluctuations in
outcome and performance year-to-year.

10. List your program’s annual outcomes and performance for the past 1 to 3 years. Explain any fluctuations in
outcome and performance year-to-year.

Outcomes and Impact

12. What are the total proposed annual program expenses for the 2021-2022 fiscal year? What were the total
program expenses in the most recently completed
calendar or fiscal year? What is changing?

11. What are the total proposed annual program expenses for the 2025 fiscal year? What were the total program
expenses in the most recently completed calendar or
fiscal year? What is changing?

13. Describe the proposed program expenses and explain
how funds requested are reasonable to support the
proposed numbers of participants to be served, hours
of service to be provided, and overall program design.

12. Describe the proposed program expenses and explain
how funds requested are reasonable to support the
proposed numbers of participants to be served, hours
of service to be provided, and overall program design.
1811
46 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

5. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: PROGRAM NARRATIVE QUESTIONS

14. Provide information on the other sources of revenue supporting the program. Include the name of the
funding entity, amount of funds, duration of funds,
and whether the funds have been received, are
committed, are pending, or will be requested. State
whether your program will collect fees for
participation or if it will be free of charge to all
participants. If collecting fees, describe your fee
structure, estimated annual revenue, and estimated
percent of students participating for free compared
to students paying a fee.

13. Provide information on the other sources of revenue supporting the program. Include the name of the
funding entity, amount of funds, duration of funds,
and whether the funds have been received, are
committed, are pending, or will be requested. State
whether your program will collect fees for
participation or if it will be free of charge to all
participants. If collecting fees, describe your fee
structure, estimated annual revenue, and estimated
percent of students participating for free compared
to students paying a fee.

15. In addition to responding to all the prompt(s), also complete the Budget Template as referenced in Step
3 found in Appendix D.

The program budget is an important component of
your proposal that should be clearly linked to
support the proposed program, with reasonable and
justifiable expenses for staffing and program costs.

The budget proposed should be an appropriate and
accurate projection of the program expenses for one
program year: FY 2021-2022 (July 1, 2021 to June
30, 2022).

This section also allows you to show the cost
effectiveness of your program and demonstrate how
you will leverage other funds for the programs you
are proposing. The proposed budget should be
reflective of what was written in the Proposal
Narrative section and your proposed Activities.

14. In addition to responding to all the prompt(s), also complete the Budget Template as referenced in Step
3 found in Appendix D.

The program budget is an important component of
your proposal that should be clearly linked to
support the proposed program, with reasonable and
justifiable expenses for staffing and program costs.

The budget proposed should be an appropriate and
accurate projection of the program expenses for one
program year: FY 2024-2025 (July 1, 2024 to June
30, 2025).

6. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION CRITERIA Following the 2020 Community Needs Assessment and the Development of the Strategic Investment Plan Fiscal years 2021-2024, the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth issues on January 1, 2021, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Direct Services in six Priority Areas. The RFP included guidance for organizations/agencies seeking a grant application and criteria for evaluating the applications (proposals) submitted. The evaluation criteria included in the January 2021 RFP are listed in the left column of the following table by each component of the application, along with the maximum points an applicant can receive for the respective component. The right column of the table includes an updated and expanded version of the 2021 evaluation criteria. The changes include:
• Terminology changes such as “Organization” instead of “Agency,” as most applicants are not agencies but organizations.
• Additional evaluation criteria providing context and important differentiation among the 3 types of grants, as listed in the Organization History and Capacity. • Adding information to evaluation criteria that is significant, such as whether the applicant has had an RFCY grant (which was not applicable when the 2021 RFP was issued) or the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to the Outcome and Impact evaluation criterion addressing the demonstration of the ability to reasonably account for/track outcomes.
• Adding a Program Design criterion to ensure that the Proposal specified which of the Programming Strategies listed under each Core Needs area are implemented by the applicant’s program. • More consistency in positioning the applicant; for example, using “application” instead of applicant, organization, etc.
• Inserting references to partner(s) where applicable.

I. Application Evaluation Criteria

5. 1813
48 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
FY 2021-24 RFP For Direct Services in Following Priority Areas
January 1, 2021
Strategic Investment Plan FY 2025-28
Grant Application Evaluation Criteria Grant Application Suggested Updated Criteria Agency History and Capacity (20 points) Organization History and Capacity (20 Points unless a Small & Emerging applicant)
Year Founded, Location, Annual Budget, Number of FTE
Staff.

Type of Grant: Single Organization, Collaboration, Small & Emerging.

If the application is for a collaboration grant, describe role, responsibilities and functions of each partner.

If the application is from a Small & Emerging
organization, points for this section of the application should be 5, and the total for such organizations should be 85 (instead of 100).

Past, recently completed, or on-going projects to
substantiate experience.

Past, recently completed, or on-going projects to
substantiate experience. Include any RFCY grants.

Demonstration of ability and experience in working with diverse communities & youth.

Application demonstrates ability and experience in
working with diverse communities & youth.

Agency has achieved success and accomplishments
demonstrate capacity for effective delivery of proposed services.

Organization’s accomplishments demonstrate capacity
for effective delivery of proposed services.

Professional background and qualifications of team
members proposed to deliver direct services and
manage the program are included and relevant and
show that members are qualified.

Application identifies and describes proposed project
manager and staff professional background and relevant
experience, includes resumes, demonstrating
qualifications.

If application is for a collaboration grant, application includes a description of each partner’s role and staff qualifications.

Racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic characteristics and or lived experience of staff reflect communities proposed
to be served.

Racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic characteristics and or lived experience of staff (of organization and partner, if applicable) reflect communities proposed to be served.

6. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION CRITERIA 1814
49 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Program Design (35 points) Program Design (35 points)
A clear and specific outline of the proposed services,
including frequency of programming, average number of
clients to be served daily and over the course of the
year, location of services, and extent of proposed
services to be delivered.

A clear and detailed description of the proposed
services, including frequency of programming, average
number of clients to be served daily and over the course of the year, location of services, and extent of proposed services to be delivered.

The proposed program, strategy or initiative is included in the Core Needs and Programming Strategies table.

Outreach and engagement strategies that are effective
and culturally relevant.

Application demonstrates the use of outreach,
recruitment and engagement strategies that are
effective and culturally relevant.

Clearly demonstrated how youth voice, perspective, and
input is included in the program development, design,
outreach, and/or implementation.

Application clearly demonstrates how youth voice,
perspective, and input is included in the program
development, design, outreach, recruitment and/or
implementation.

Responses show an awareness of the community and
target population.

Application includes information showing an awareness
of the community and target population.

Special resources and capacities the team offers that are relevant to the successful completion of the project,
including partnerships and subgrantees.

Outcomes and Impact (25 Points) Outcomes and Impact (25 Points) Applicant describes how program will contribute to
equity among children, youth and their families in
Richmond and North Richmond.

Application describes how the program will contribute to equity among children, youth and their families in
Richmond.

Applicant clearly describes the intended participants
that the program is designed to address and their needs, providing accurate, current, and specific data where
possible to demonstrate need.

Application clearly describes the intended participants that the program is designed to address and their needs, providing accurate, current, and specific data where
possible to demonstrate need.

6. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION CRITERIA 1815
50 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Outcomes and Impact (25 Points) Outcomes and Impact (25 Points) Applicant identifies outcomes that have been achieved
through the proposed services before and is able to link projected outcomes to intended impacts identified in
the Priority Areas/funding strategies.

Application identifies outcomes that have been achieved through the proposed services before and is able to link projected outcomes to intended impacts identified in
the core need areas/funding strategies.

Applicant demonstrates the ability to reasonably
account for/track outcomes.

Application demonstrates ability to reasonably account
for/track outcomes and to use the Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) suggested by RFCY.

Required Resources and Budget Request
(20 Points)
Required Resources and Budget Request
(20 Points)
Program provides a clear budget that describes staffing and associated direct costs required for successful
program implementation.

Application provides a clear budget that describes
staffing and associated direct costs required for
successful program implementation.

Expenses are reasonable and commensurate with the
scale of services proposed.

Additional resources are identified to support the
program, with reasonable plan for securing matching
funds.

Application identifies additional resources to support the program and includes a reasonable plan for securing
matching funds.

Total program budget of RFCY funding and additional
matching funding is realistic and reasonable for
proposed level of services.

The ratio between the organization’s total grant requests and their organization’s overall current year budget is appropriate based on program design and other factors.

6. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION CRITERIA 1816
51 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

6. THE RFP APPLICATION PROCESS: GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION CRITERIA The 2021 RFP for Direct Services specified maximum points for each part of the grant application, adding to 100 points.

As shown in the table below, the following points were
allocated to:
• Agency History and Capacity: 20 points
• Program Design: 35 points
• Outcomes and Impact: 25 points
• Required Resources and Budget Request: 20 points
The analysis conducted as part of the 2024 Community
Needs Assessment and the review- and updating of- the
2021 evaluation criteria pointed to the need to revise the scoring system by adding criteria and allocating a specific number of points to each added criterion.

This can be accommodated by increasing the total number of points to more than 100. Each of the added criteria will get a maximum of 5 points.

Suggested added evaluation criteria include:
• Applicant provides services in Low and Very Low COI
census tracts
• Applicant provides transportation services to program participants
• Applicant offers 2Gen activities and services as part of the grant program
• Adding these evaluation criteria will increase the
maximum number of points to 115
II. Application Scoring
1817
52 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

7. PROPOSED INVESTMENT ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES
One of the key components of the Strategic Investment Plan is the specification of the funding allocation across the areas identified in the 2020 Community Needs Assessment Report and in the Strategic Investment Plan Fiscal Years 20021-2024 as Priority Areas (based on Article XV) and in the 2024 Community Needs Assessment as Core Need areas.

I. Current Allocation Process
The 2020 Community Needs Assessment Report and the Strategic Investment Plan Fiscal Years 20021-2024 identified six Priority Areas. The funding allocation across these six Priority Areas is shown below.

Priority Area Percent
Behavioral Health, Mental Health and Wellness 20%
Education Support and Employment/Training Support 20%
Out of School Time, Afterschool, Sports and Enrichment 20% Youth Violence Prevention 20%
Access to Basic Needs 10%
Information, Guidance and Case Management 10%
According to the Strategic Investment Plan Fiscal Years 20021-2024, the percent allocation was based on “considerations of the urgency of the need and potential for equity impact.” 6 6 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclef indmkaj/https://www .ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/56807/RFCY-2021-2024-Strategic-Investment-Plan 1818
53 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

7. PROPOSED INVESTMENT ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES
The 2024 Community Needs Assessment identified Five Core Need Areas based on feedback from nearly 400 community members, service providers, policymakers and youth. Feedback was provided through interviews, surveys, focus groups, a Visioning Event and a Strategic Investment Plan Insight session. It supported thorough research on the extent- and impact of- the needs of children and youth in the Richmond community.

While all five areas were considered of high need, the Learning Needs area and the Mental & Behavioral Health Needs areas stood out in the urgency, scope and depth of the need. The following table allocates the highest shares to these two areas.

II. Proposed Allocation Process
Core Need Area Percent allocation
Mental & Behavioral Health Needs 25%
Physical Health, Wellness & Access 20%
Learning Needs 25%
Safety, Community & Belonging Needs 20%
Connective Supportive Services: Navigation, Transportation, 2Gen 10% 1819
54 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

1. Live Resource Guide Development
I. Enhancing Access to Resources
Fund the creation of a dynamic resource guide, dashboard, and apps to provide up-to-date information on services like pop-up food pantries, schedules of community events, and other resources. This will ensure community members have easy access to essential services and events in their area. Additionally, it enhances community engagement and resource utilization, reduces the time and effort needed to find help, and ensures that those in need can quickly locate and benefit from available services. The platform of this live guide would enable RFCY grantees to populate the content of the guide in real time.

2. Universal Social/Community-Based Services Application Develop an application similar to BenefitsCheckUp , where community members can enter eligibility related data to identify services they qualify for, with direct links to application websites and resources. This tool reduces barriers for those searching and applying for various social and community services, making it easier for individuals and families to access the help they need. It also reduces the complexity of navigating multiple systems, increases service utilization, and ensures that more people receive the support they are eligible for.

3. Peer Navigator Training Program
II. Building Capacity and Providing Training
Allocate funds to create a training program for
Peer Navigators who can assist community
members in accessing services. This includes
guiding individuals through processes such as
obtaining mental health services via Medi-Cal,
ensuring that those in need can navigate complex
systems and access necessary services. This
support can lead to better mental health
outcomes, increased service utilization, and a
stronger sense of community support. Trained
navigators can also help reduce the stigma
associated with seeking help and ensure that
individuals receive timely and appropriate care.

8. PROMISING PRACTICES TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD

AS A CITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEDICATED FUND
1820
55 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

8. PROMISING PRACTICES TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD

AS A CITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEDICATED FUND

4. Children & Youth Grant Officer Position
Establish a position for a Grant Officer to identify Request for Proposals from federal, state, and foundation grants that non-profits and collaboratives within Richmond qualify for and apply to draw down more funding to address children and youth needs. This officer would assist in notifying non-profits of available grants, provide support and city data to substantiate needs in their proposals. The Officer could also offer workshops to build internal capacity among RFCY Grantees and non-profits on writing and applying for grants. The Officer would also be responsible for identifying federal and state funds that the City itself could apply for to augment the Richmond Fund for Children & Youth and/or relevant City Departments. Potential grants to highlight include:

SAMHSA's Children's Mental Health Initiative:7
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) provides grants to expand and sustain comprehensive community mental health services for children with serious emotional disturbances (SED). This program aims to improve mental health outcomes for children and youth at risk for or with SED by supporting the implementation and integration of the System of Care (SOC) approach, creating sustainable infrastructure and services.

Department of Labor Grants:8
The U.S. Department of Labor provides several funding opportunities aimed at supporting youth through different programs. The YouthBuild grants offer financial support to organizations that provide preapprenticeship services, including education, skills training, and employment assistance, for young people aged 16 to 24. These grants help youth engage in meaningful community service while preparing for careers in various sectors, especially in infrastructure. YouthBuild grants also fund additional support services like mentoring, trauma-informed care, personal counseling, transportation assistance, and employment preparation, which are essential for addressing community violence. Furthermore, the Workforce Pathways for Youth demonstration grants are designed for national out-of-school time organizations that serve historically underserved and marginalized youth between the ages of 14 and 21. These grants focus on enhancing workforce readiness by offering programs that develop soft skills, provide career exploration, job readiness training, certification, and work-based learning opportunities such as summer jobs, year-round employment, and apprenticeships.

Youth Community Access Grant Program:9
The program was recently launched by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) through the Resources Agency Project Tracking and Reporting (RAPTR) System. Funded by the Youth Education, Prevention, Early Intervention and Treatment Account (YEPEITA), this program aims to enhance youth access to natural and cultural resources, focusing on low-income and disadvantaged communities. 7 https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/fy-2024-cmhinofo.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.samhsa.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fgrants%2Fpdf%2Ffy 8 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/grants/apply/find-opportunities 9 https://resources.ca.gov/grants/youth
1821
56 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

5. Capacity-Building Grants
Provide grants to strengthen the non-profit sector by supporting activities such as grant-writing, creation of dashboards, navigation of community services, training for Board Members, and designing Key Performance Indicators. These grants will enhance the ability of non-profits to serve the community effectively.

6. Innovation & Community-Building Grants
Support rapid-response funding opportunities for urgent issues and provide mini-grants to neighborhood groups to hold family and community multicultural events that enhance safety, belonging, and community within neighborhoods.

7. Deepen Partnerships with School Districts
III. Strengthening Education and School Support
Strengthen collaborations at the ground level between school counselors, teachers, McKinney-Vento Liaisons, who provide support for students who are experiencing homelessness, and after-school programs.

For example, school home liaisons working directly with volunteer tutors at a local center who, in turn, coordinates with teachers of the student to provide feedback on homework assignments. Focus on supporting learning, college preparation, and scholarship applications to provide comprehensive support to students. Enhanced partnerships with school districts ensure that students receive comprehensive support for their academic and personal development. This can lead to improved educational outcomes, higher graduation rates, and increased access to higher education opportunities. By providing a network of support, students are more likely to succeed academically and develop the skills necessary for future success.

8. Support for Comprehensive After-School Programming
RFCY should consider a partnership with specific school districts to provide comprehensive after-school programming for elementary and middle school students. For example, the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) leverages matching funds from federal and state sources to maximize impact. OFCY collaborates with the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) to provide thousands of low-income students with free, high-quality after-school programs. Each year, OFCY and OUSD co-fund community-based organizations that act as lead agencies at school sites, offering direct services and enriching after-school activities. This partnership model not only maximizes resources but also ensures the programs are wellintegrated into the community, providing consistent support and opportunities for students.

8. PROMISING PRACTICES TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD

AS A CITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEDICATED FUND
1822
57 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

9. Reinstitute Service Provider Network
IV. Improving Network and Coordination
Facilitate the reinstatement of the Service Provider Network and create a Youth Engagement Council of youth leaders to advise on needs and services. Consider funding a part-time manager for the network to ensure effective coordination and communication among service providers. Reinstating the Service Provider Network and establishing a Youth Engagement Council ensures that services are well-coordinated and responsive to the community's needs. This leads to more effective and efficient service delivery, reduced duplication of efforts, and a better understanding of the community's needs. A part-time manager would help maintain communication and collaboration among providers, ensuring that services are aligned and addressing the most pressing issues facing youth and families.

10. Cross-Departmental Coordination
Enhance coordination of youth services across departments such as Police, Fire, and Youth, Parks and Community Enrichment. Richmond can draw inspiration from Sacramento’s approach to fostering crossdepartmental collaboration. Sacramento’s Citywide Youth Development Campaign Plan, implemented in December 2017, exemplifies how coordinated efforts across multiple departments can create a safer & more supportive environment for youth. By promoting preventive programs that address stable housing, early childhood supports, quality education, and community spaces, Sacramento has successfully reduced youth-related violence and enhanced community well-being. This comprehensive approach not only improves public safety but also reduces the need for reactive services from police and fire departments.

Implementing similar strategies in Richmond can ensure a holistic approach to youth well-being, leveraging the strengths of various departments to address the multifaceted needs of young people.

8. PROMISING PRACTICES TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD

AS A CITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEDICATED FUND
1823
58 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

11. Transportation Work Group
Create a group to identify transportation barriers and opportunities for children and youth to access and participate in out-of-school activities. This includes initiatives like Richmond Rides Share and transportation services for youth experiencing homelessness or unstable housing, ensuring that all youth can participate in beneficial programs.

VI. Securing and Managing Funding

12. Exploring Additional Funding Opportunities
Explore other ways for the city to increase funding for the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) beyond the current 3% of general funds. Look into successful models from other programs to identify new funding streams and sustainable financial practices.

13. Funding Source and Eligibility Expansion
Similar to the City of Santa Cruz’s Children’s Fund and the Sacramento Children’s fund, Richmond could allocate a percentage of the city’s marijuana business tax revenue to fund youth and early childhood development programs and services. Richmond could focus on programs that prevent youth-related violence and support comprehensive youth development plans, addressing the root causes of youth violence and providing holistic support. In Santa Cruz, the funding is available to 501(c)3 and 501(c)6 organizations, childcare providers, and governmental bodies. Childcare providers with current licenses in good standing with the Community Care Licensing Division of the California Department of Social Services are eligible.

14. Funding Cycles and Investment
Implement a two-year funding cycle to enable larger and more impactful investments. All grants should have a minimum $50,000 award with no set limits on the amount requested, like the City of Santa Cruz’s Children’s Fund. This approach encourages substantial investments and allows for the strategic planning and execution of long-term projects. The stability provided by a two-year funding cycle ensures sustained support for critical initiatives, enabling organizations to plan effectively and implement comprehensive programs that can significantly benefit the community. By setting a minimum award of $50,000, Richmond can attract high-quality proposals and support impactful projects that address the diverse needs of its youth population.

8. PROMISING PRACTICES TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD

AS A CITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEDICATED FUND
V. Transportation Needs
1824
59 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

15. Equity Guidance
VII. Fostering Equity and Effective Evaluation
Assuring that funds and resources are equitably distributed, an Equity Lens is a valuable tool to adopt. For example, The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) offers a good example of such a lens that would be helpful in the evaluation process of the RFP (Appendix E). RFCY can adopt a similar Equity Lens to address place-based neighborhood disparities, racial disparities, and socio-economic inequities by directing resources to areas identified by the Child Opportunity Index (COI). According to the COI data for Richmond, nearly half (45%) of the neighborhoods show “Very Low” and “Low” opportunities for children and youth to thrive, with significant disparities in child poverty rates and COI scores across different census tracts. The COI incorporates both income and non-income-based factors, highlighting that neighborhoods with higher levels of child poverty tend to have lower COI scores. This is particularly true for Black and Hispanic children, who are disproportionately represented in low COI neighborhoods.

By using the COI as a guiding tool, RFCY can strategically target funding to neighborhoods that fall within the "Very Low" and "Low" opportunity levels. This approach will ensure that resources are allocated to the most underserved and high-need areas, promoting equity and addressing the root causes of disparities. For instance, programs aimed at early childhood development, mental health support, and youth employment can be prioritized in these low-opportunity neighborhoods to uplift and provide critical support to the children and youth who need it most.

In practice, RFCY can map out the census tracts with the lowest COI scores and support specific initiatives to support these areas. This could include partnerships with local organizations to provide comprehensive services such as after-school programs, mentoring, health services, and community engagement activities.

Additionally, by regularly reviewing COI data, RFCY can adapt its strategies to evolving community needs, ensuring that funding continues to address the most pressing issues and supports the long-term well-being of Richmond's youth.

8. PROMISING PRACTICES TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD

AS A CITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEDICATED FUND
1825
60 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

16. Partnership with Violence Prevention and Workforce Development VIII. Promoting Youth Development and Safety
Support initiatives that re-engage disconnected youth into supportive programs in collaboration with the City’s Department of Violence Prevention and Workforce Development Board. For example, the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) and the Oakland Workforce Development Board (OWDB) issued a joint Request for Proposals (RFP) for a cohesive program model to expand summer job opportunities for youth.

This initiative reduced administrative burdens, strengthened system-wide collaboration, and increased participation in subsidized summer jobs programs, providing meaningful employment and skill-building opportunities for disconnected youth.

17. Youth Development Campaign Plan
Develop and implement a citywide Youth Development Campaign Plan that emphasizes safety, equity, justice, and accountability. This plan should aim to create a safe environment for youth both physically and emotionally, reflecting the needs and perspectives of young people in all policies and programs. Inspired by Sacramento’s Citywide Youth Development Campaign Plan, Richmond can promote equity and justice through coordinated prevention services. Sacramento’s plan involves active participation from youth, under the guiding principle “Nothing about us without us,” ensuring that youth voices are central in the planning and decision-making processes.10 The plan’s initiatives, such as stable housing, early childhood supports, quality education, and community spaces, help foster safer and healthier communities. By adopting a similar plan, Richmond can provide comprehensive support to its youth, creating an environment where they feel safe and valued, thereby improving overall community well-being. 10https://www.fundingthenextgeneration.org/nextgenwp/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Sacramento-_Resolution_to_Redefine_Public_Safety_PDF-955_KB002.pdf

8. PROMISING PRACTICES TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD

AS A CITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH DEDICATED FUND
1826
61 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

9. OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY OF DEVELOPING THE SIP
The foundation of the Strategic Investment Plan is the 2024 Community Needs Assessment that identified Five Core Needs of Richmond’s Children and Youth. The needs assessment involved four major components:

Community Engagement listening to almost 400 voices among youth, community members, service providers and policy makers through Key Informant Interviews, Focus Groups of over 100 youth, a survey of over 200 respondents and a Visioning Event generating ideas of community members going forward to address the needs. Their voices were validated through comprehensive study and analysis of secondary data acquired from reports, U.S. Census data, and GIS mapping on poverty, food access and a Child Opportunity Index measuring degrees of access to 44 indicators of opportunity that enable children to thrive among Richmond neighborhoods.

The public visioning event was a core component of the Strategic Investment Plan of engaging the community as to their ideas on what RFCY would do well to consider in addressing the Five Core Needs.

Held at the Richmond Auditorium, the event provided dinner and featured break-out discussions at round tables. Participants engaged in these discussions after listening to 5-minute "Ted-Talk" style briefings covering three main topics: Mental & Behavioral Health Needs, Learning Needs, and Safety, and Community and Belonging.

During the two-hour event, participants generated ideas on addressing each topic in their break-out sessions and then shared their ideas with the entire group. This interactive event allowed Richmond community members to share their experiences, insights, and perspectives on the needs of children and youth, offering innovative solutions. Nearly fifty ideas were generated and are presented in this plan.

The visioning event drew over 70 community members, including adults and youth, with representatives from 17 organizations. A unique feature of the evening was the live illustration of participants' ideas by a graphic recorder. This artist created an eight-foot mural in real-time, capturing the collective input of the attendees. This visual representation proved particularly engaging, especially for younger participants who were seen taking selfies and pictures in front of the mural at the event's conclusion. 1827
62 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

9. OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY OF DEVELOPING THE SIP
The mural is presented below:

Beyond community engagement and the development of the Community Needs Assessment (CNA), the consulting group then reviewed RFCY’s current protocol on how decisions are made to strategically invest in the wide array of worthy community-based organizations that are dedicated to addressing the needs of children and youth cited in the CNA. The Request for Proposal (RFP) process serves as a comprehensive guide on making those strategic decisions on who, what and how to invest the Funds of RFCY. As a result, the Application, Evaluation, Scoring and Allocation of Funds processes were analyzed and reviewed in light of the Five Core Needs identified. The consulting team researched similar city-funded Children and Youth Funds for promising practices in their decision-making and grant award processes as well as a review of the literature and standards of practice in developing Key Performance Indicators and Pre-and-Post Youth Participant and Parent/Caregiver Evaluation Surveys.

As a result, this Strategic Investment Plan serves to provide RFCY with the infrastructure to guide their decision-making for the years to come and yield the return on investment they and the youth and children they serve seek and deserve.
1828
63 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

10. RICHMOND FUND FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
A. History
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) was established following the approval of Measure E and Measure K by Richmond voters on June 5, 2018. This initiative, known as the Richmond Kids First Initiative, led to the amendment of the City of Richmond Charter (Article XV) and authorized the creation of the Richmond Department and Fund for Children and Youth. The primary aim of RFCY is to provide increased and dedicated funding for services benefiting children, youth, and young adults under 24 years of age in Richmond. This move was driven by the city’s commitment to addressing the substantial and persistent needs of its young population.

B. Article XV
Article XV of the City of Richmond Charter mandates the allocation of 3% of the City’s General Fund to the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth each fiscal year, starting from FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28. This dedicated funding supports the ongoing needs of the department and the fund, ensuring a consistent financial commitment to youth services. The article also established a 15-member Oversight Board and required the department to conduct a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) every three years to guide the development of a Strategic Investment Plan. The CNA engages community members, including youth, agencies, and organizations, to identify and prioritize the needs of Richmond’s children and youth.

C. Vision
The vision of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth is to create a community where every child, youth, and young adult in Richmond can thrive. This involves ensuring that they are physically, emotionally, mentally, and socially healthy, successful in school, and live in stable, safe, and supportive families and communities. The vision reflects the community’s aspirations for its young population and underscores the city’s commitment to investing in their futures.

D. Mission
The mission of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth is to enhance the quality of life for Richmond’s children, youth, and young adults by providing equitable and sustainable funding for programs and services that address their needs. The mission focuses on promoting safety, health, education, and well-being through a collaborative approach that involves public agencies, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders. By leveraging resources and fostering partnerships, RFCY aims to create an environment where young people can achieve their full potential.
1829
64 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

10. RICHMOND FUND FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
E. Guiding Principles
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth operates under a set of guiding principles that reflect its core values and commitment to the community:

1. Community-Centered:

Richmond residents are considered experts in their lived experiences. Their insights and needs are central to the planning and decision-making processes.

2. Equity and Inclusion:

RFCY emphasizes the importance of addressing racial and economic disparities. Programs and services are designed to be inclusive of all ages, races, ethnicities, gender expressions, languages, and abilities/disabilities.

3. Collaboration and Shared Ownership:

RFCY values collaboration among public agencies, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders. Shared outcomes and collective efforts are key to achieving the fund’s goals.

4. Transparency and Accountability:

RFCY is committed to being transparent in its operations and accountable to the community it serves.

Open communication and regular reporting on progress are integral to maintaining trust and credibility.

5. Innovation and Flexibility:

RFCY encourages innovative approaches to address the evolving needs of children and youth. Flexibility in program design and implementation is essential to responding effectively to emerging challenges.

6. Youth Engagement:

The principle of “Nothing About Me, Without Me” emphasizes the importance of youth voice and engagement. Young people are actively involved in the planning, decision-making, and evaluation processes to ensure their needs and perspectives are reflected.

By adhering to these guiding principles, RFCY aims to create a supportive, equitable, and thriving environment for Richmond’s children and youth, paving the way for a brighter and more inclusive future. 1830
65 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Appendix A: Pre and Post-Program Questions for
Youth and Parents-Caregivers
Pre and Post-Program Questions for Parents-Caregivers
Category Pre-Program Questions Post-Program Questions
Child's Information What is your child's age and grade level? What is your child's age and grade level? What zip code do you reside in? What zip code do you reside in? Which school does your child attend? Which school does your child attend? What is your race/ethnicity? (e.g., Black,
Latinx, White/Caucasian, Asian,
Multiracial, etc.)?
Household Information What is your current housing situation? (Stable housing, temporary housing,
experiencing homelessness)
If you do not have stable housing, where
do you live? (e.g., homeless shelter, with
relatives, etc.)
Has your housing situation changed since
the beginning of the program? (Stable
housing, temporary housing, experiencing
homelessness)
How many people live in your household?
Do you live with parents, legal guardian,
grandparents, or other relatives?
Has the program provided any resources
or support that has positively impacted
your household's stability? (Yes/No, and
please explain)
Mental and Behavioral
Health
Has your child been diagnosed with any
mental health conditions? (Yes/No)
Did you notice any improvement in your
child's mental health and well-being?
(Yes/No)
Does your child currently receive any
mental health services? (Yes/No)
Did the program help your child develop
coping skills and manage stress better?
(Yes/No)
Learning Needs Does your child struggle with reading,
math, or other academic subjects?
(Yes/No)
Did you see an improvement in your child's
academic performance? (Yes/No)
Does your child need help completing
homework regularly? (Yes/No)
Has your child become more confident in
completing homework assignments?
(Yes/No)

APPENDICES
1831
66 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Category Pre-Program Questions Post-Program Questions
Program Participation How did you hear about our program? How many hours per week did your child participate in the program?
Has your child participated in any afterschool programs or extracurricular activities in the past year? (Yes/No)
Are you interested in enrolling your child in
programs related to mental health, arts,
music, science, or sports? (Yes/No)
Were there any barriers that affected your
child's regular attendance? (Yes/No)
Engagement and
Retention
How many hours per week can your child
commit to participating in the program?
How would you rate your overall
satisfaction with the program? (Scale of 1-
10)
Are there any barriers that might prevent
your child from regularly attending the
program? (Transportation, scheduling
conflicts, etc.)
Would you recommend this program to
other parents? (Yes/No)
Parental Involvement Are you interested in attending workshops or meetings related to your child's
education and well-being? (Yes/No)
Did you attend any workshops or meetings
related to the program? (Yes/No)
How often can you commit to participating
in program-related events or workshops?
(Monthly, quarterly, etc.)
How often did you participate in programrelated events or workshops? (Monthly, quarterly, etc.)
Transportation Does your child have reliable
transportation to and from the program?
(Yes/No)
Did your child have reliable transportation
to and from the program? (Yes/No)
Do you need assistance with
transportation for your child to attend the
program? (Yes/No)
Did you receive any assistance with
transportation for your child to attend the
program? (Yes/No)
Resource Utilization Are you aware of any community
resources or services available to support
your child's education and well-being?
(Yes/No)
Were you able to access community
resources or services through the
program? (Yes/No)

APPENDICES
1832
67 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Category Pre-Program Questions Post-Program Questions
Resource Utilization Have you used any community resources or services in the past year? (Yes/No)
Did you find the community resources or
services provided helpful? (Yes/No)
Safety and Community
Spaces
Does your child feel safe in your
neighborhood and at school? (Yes/No)
Did your child feel safe in the program
environment? (Yes/No)
Are there safe spaces in your community
where your child can spend time and
engage in activities? (Yes/No)
Did the program provide safe spaces for
your child to engage in activities? (Yes/No)
Cultural Competency Does your child have access to culturally relevant programs and activities? (Yes/No)
Was the program culturally relevant and
sensitive to your child's needs? (Yes/No)
Are there specific cultural or linguistic
needs your family has that we should be
aware of? (Yes/No)
Did the program meet your family's
specific cultural or linguistic needs?
(Yes/No)
Employment and
Financial Support
Do you need assistance with finding
employment or financial support for your
family? (Yes/No)
Did you receive any assistance with finding
employment or financial support through
the program? (Yes/No)
Are you interested in learning about
programs that offer financial aid or other
types of economic support? (Yes/No)
Did you learn about programs that offer
financial aid or other types of economic
support? (Yes/No)
Digital Accessibility Does your child have access to a computer and high-speed internet at home?
(Yes/No)
Did your child have access to a computer
and high-speed internet to participate in
the program? (Yes/No)
Would you prefer to receive program
information and updates online or in
person? (Online/In person)
How did you prefer to receive program
information and updates? (Online/In
person)
Feedback and
Suggestions
What are your primary goals for your child
participating in this program? (Openended)
Did the program meet your primary goals
for your child? (Yes/No)
How would you rate your overall
satisfaction with the program? (Scale of 1-
10)

APPENDICES
1833
68 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Pre and Post-Program Questions for Youth Participants
Category Pre-Program Questions Post-Program Questions
Demographic
Information
How old are you? How old are you now?
What grade are you in at school? What grade are you in now? What is your home zip code? Has your home zip code changed since you started the program? (Yes/No)
What is your race/ethnicity? (e.g., Black,
Latinx, White/Caucasian, Asian,
Multiracial, etc.)
Housing Status Do you have a stable place to live?
(Options: Yes, temporary housing,
homeless)
If you don't have a stable home, where do
you live? (Examples: with relatives, in a
homeless shelter, etc.)
Has your housing situation changed since
you started the program? (Yes/No)
If your housing situation was unstable
before, has it improved after participating
in the program? (Yes/No)
How many people live with you at home?
Do you live with your parents, a legal
guardian, grandparents, or other relatives?
Has the number of people living in your
home changed since you started the
program? (Yes/No)
Have there been any changes in who you
live with? (Yes/No)
Mental and Behavioral
Health
Are you experiencing anxiety or
depression? (Yes/No)
Did you notice any improvement in your
mental health and well-being? (Yes/No)
Have you sought treatment for these
issues? (Yes/No)
Did the program help you develop coping
skills and manage stress better? (Yes/No)
Would you like to receive resources or
services on how to address these issues?
(Yes/No)
Did you receive resources or services on
how to address your mental health issues?
(Yes/No)

APPENDICES
1834
69 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Category Pre-Program Questions Post-Program Questions
Learning Needs Do you feel you need additional support in reading or math? (Yes/No)
How have your reading and math skills
improved since participating in the
program? (Much improved, improved, no
change, worsened)
Do you need support in developing skills
such as teamwork, communication, and
problem-solving? (Yes/No)
How have your teamwork, communication,
and problem-solving skills improved?
(Much improved, improved, no change,
worsened)
Career and College
Preparation
Are you interested in college prep or
career training programs? (Yes/No)
Did you participate in college prep or
career training programs during the
program? (Yes/No)
Transportation Needs Will access to transportation affect your participation in this program? (Yes/No)
Was transportation a barrier to your
attendance? (Yes/No)
What type of transportation did you use to
come to this program? (Parent drop-off,
public transport, etc.)
Did the program assist you with
transportation needs? (Yes/No)
Food Insecurity Do you experience hunger? If so, how
often are you hungry? (some days, most
days, etc.)
Did the program help you with food
security? (Yes/No)
Safety Do you feel safe in your neighborhood?
(Yes/No)
Do you feel safe at school? (Yes/No)
Do you feel safer in your neighborhood
after participating in the program?
(Yes/No)
Do you feel safer at school after
participating in the program? (Yes/No)
How often do you spend time in
community spaces like parks, marinas, or
friends' houses? (Rarely, Sometimes,
Often)
Did your time spent in community spaces
like parks, marinas, or friends' houses
increase? (Yes/No)
Social Activities Are you interested in participating in afterschool programs or clubs? (Yes/No)How have your social interactions and relationships with peers and mentors
improved? (Much improved, improved, no
change, worsened)
Are you interested in participating in
support groups or social activities?
(Yes/No)
How has your self-esteem & emotional
resilience improved? (Much improved,
improved, no change, worsened).

APPENDICES
1835
70 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Category Pre-Program Questions Post-Program Questions
Health and Nutrition Would you like to participate in health and nutrition programs? (Yes/No)
How have your eating habits and nutrition
knowledge improved? (Much improved,
improved, no change, worsened)
Engagement and
Retention
How many hours per week can you
commit to participating in the program?
How often did you attend the program
sessions? (All sessions, most sessions,
some sessions, few sessions)
Have you had trouble attending programs
regularly in the past? (Yes/No)
What kept you motivated to continue
attending the program?
Program Satisfaction How did you find out about this program? (Community event, word of mouth, social
media, etc.)
How satisfied are you with the program
you attended? (Scale of 1-10)
What did you like most about the
program?
What did you like least about the
program?
Community Impact Are you aware of any community
resources or services available to support
your education and well-being? (Yes/No)
Did the program help you become more
aware of community resources and
services? (Yes/No)
Parental and Family
Support
Do your parents or guardians participate in
your school or extracurricular activities?
(Yes/No)
Did your parents or guardians become
more involved in your education and
activities? (Yes/No)
How did the program help your family?
Future Participation Would you recommend this program to others? (Yes/No)
What additional programs or services
would you like to see offered?

APPENDICES
1836
71 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Appendix B: RFCY Priority Populations Checklist
RFCY Priority Populations
The Fund prioritizes Richmond and North Richmond
children, youth, and transitional age youth who are
most impacted by harm, inequity, and lack of access
to support services.
• Children (birth-12)
• Youth (ages 13 to 17)
• Transitional age youth (ages 18-24)
The priority populations include, but are not limited to:
• Justice-impacted youth;
• Young people who have been pushed out of school;
• Young people who themselves are experiencing homeless, or whose families are unhoused or threatened by homelessness;
• Young people living in poverty; immigrant and undocumented children, youth, and families; • LGBTQIA+ children, youth, and families;
• Teen parents and families, including single mothers; young people with poor physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, and children with disabilities; • Families with children and youth who are impacted by the criminal justice system, and/ or who have family members who are incarcerated, and/or who are involved in or transitioning from the foster care, juvenile/ criminal justice, or special education systems.

APPENDICES
1837
72 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Appendix C: The 5 Guiding Principles of 2Gen
These principles are foundational values embedded in
two-generation (2Gen) approaches
Measure and account for outcomes for both children and the adults in their lives. While subsequent principles are important for all strategies, the distinguishing factor of the 2Gen approach is the focus on whole families. Programs and policies should measure outcomes at multiple levels – for individuals, key family relationships (parent-child, co-parents), and families as a whole – to yield a complete picture of how families are faring and the effectiveness of 2Gen approaches. It’s important we learn more about interim outcomes (like client trust and hope) and the effects of interim outcomes on long-term outcomes (like a child’s education progress or a family’s income).

Engage and listen to the voices of families
Parents/adult caregivers are the experts when it comes to what their families need to thrive and the ways in which 2Gen approaches may or may not be meeting those needs. Their perspectives and experiential wisdom should be embedded in the design of 2Gen approaches, in their implementation, and in the generation of evidence for those approaches.

Ensure racial, gender, and economic equity
2Gen approaches prioritize equity so that all children and all families can thrive and have the same opportunity to reach their potential. These strategies should evaluate and fix structural problems that create gender and/or racial and ethnic disparities in all aspects – from programs and services to day-today operations to relationships with families.

Foster innovation and evidence together
Tap insights from prior evidence-based research and build a deliberate pipeline to ensure innovation.

Policies and organizational cultures should encourage the integration of innovation into emerging evidence and evaluations of effectiveness.

Align and link systems and funding streams
Rarely will single funding streams fully address all the needs of children, parents, and families. Programs will need to blend and coordinate funds to deliver two-generation services. Aligning and linking systems at the state and community level — eligibility standards, performance benchmarks, and coordinated administrative structures — while simultaneously pursuing improved outcomes for both parents and children will lead to 2Gen success.

Source: https://ascend.aspeninstitute.org/two-generation/the-5-guiding-principles-of-2gen/

APPENDICES
1838
73 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Appendix D: Child Opportunity Index (COI)
The graphic chart above shows the percentage of census tracts distributed among the five Child Opportunity Index levels and cites the census tracts below each level. This illustrates that nearly half (45%) of Richmond’s neighborhoods show “Very Low” and “Low” opportunities for children and youth to thrive. In contrast, thirty -eight percent experience High and Very High Opportunities while seventeen percent fall between them.

While the COI incorporates income and non-income based factors, a correlation can be seen between Richmond census tracts with higher levels of child poverty and lower COI scores. Like poverty rates, there is a wide disparity in COI across the different census tracts in Richmond, ranging from Very Low to Very High Opportunity. And like national trends, there is a stark disproportionate number of Black and Hispanic children living in the low COI Neighborhoods.

If you are interested in learning more about the Child Opportunity Index and using their dashboard, go to Diversity Data Kids by going to https://www.diversitydatakids.org/child-opportunity-index Percentage of COI Ratings Among Richmond Census Tracts on Education, Health & Environment, Social and Economic Indicators

APPENDICES
1839
74 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN
Child Opportunity Index (COI) Levels
And Child/Youth Population Distribution in
Richmond Census Tracts
The following map shows the Child Opportunity Index (COI) level and the number of children and youth residing within each of the twenty six census tracts and their corresponding neighborhoods as they geographically appear on a census map of Richmond.

APPENDICES
1840
75 | RFCY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN

APPENDICES
Appendix E: Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) Request for Proposal Equity Guidance
OFCY’s funding allocation decisions reflect its focus on equity. Its most recent Request for Proposals details these priorities for prospective grantees:
“The OFCY prioritizes services and programs for those with the most need and least access. OFCY works toward an equitable city by funding strategies designed to support more equitable outcomes.

Equity Guidance

1. OFCY will focus funding to address the needs of Black and Latinx youth and families who bear the most disproportionate burdens and face the most compounding stressors.

2. Funding will serve low-income children and youth, ensuring that investments reach specific communities of color, including Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. OFCY will support culturally responsive approaches to services.

3. OFCY will target funding by place. Given the dramatic disparities that exist between different neighborhoods, a place-based approach is crucial to ensure that resources are reaching the target populations. Investments should be directed into the neighborhoods and schools where these youth live and attend. The Human Services Department (HSD) stressor map is used to identify gaps and needs in a graphic manner which helps communities prioritize funding for direct services to communities in East, Central, and West Oakland.

4. OFCY recognizes the need to channel funds to youth facing multiple barriers that often intersect and heighten risk and drive inequitable outcomes. Funding approaches should support the specific needs and experiences of youth – especially those facing the most egregious challenges.

These include:
• Transition-Age Youth disconnected from both school and work. • Foster Youth
• Children and Youth Experiencing Homelessness
• Newcomer and Immigrant Children, Youth, and Their Families. • LGBTQ+ Children and Youth.
• Children and Youth with Disabilities.
• Commercially-Sexually Exploited Children and Youth (CSEC).” Source: https://www.ofcy.org/assets/Uploads/OFCY-RFP-FY2022-2025-Combined.pdf 1841
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
Evaluation
Report
FY 21–24
1842
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
1843
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Key Achievements 1
Implementation Challenges 2
Recommendations 2
Future Impact 2
Introduction 3
RFCY Theory of Change 4
Evaluation Approach 5
Data Sources 5
RFCY Implementation Summary 6
Program Reach and Coverage 7
RFCY Participant Demographics 7
Serving Communities With the Highest Needs 9
Serving Children and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations 10
Reducing Service Gaps 13
Types of Supported Programming 13
Addressing Basic Needs 13
Programs by Priority Area 16
• Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness 17
• Education Support and Employment/Training Support 19
• Out-of-School Time, After School, Sports and Enrichment 21 • Youth Violence Prevention 23
• Access to Basic Needs 24
• Information, Guidance, and Case Management 25
Assessing the Quality of Funded Programs 26
• RFCY Grantee Performance Measures 27
• Participant Satisfaction 28
• Program Environment 28
• Sense of Belonging 29
Additional Participant Experiences 30
• Building Connections 31
• Leadership and Advocacy 31
• College Preparation 31
• Academic Success 32
• Life Skills 32
• Career and Trade Job Readiness 33
• Physical, Mental, and Emotional Health 34
ii
1844
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
1845
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
1846
Executive
Summary
From FY 2021 to FY 2024, the
Richmond Fund for Children
and Youth (RFCY) invested
over $9.1 million in programs
supporting Richmond’s
children, youth, and families. Administered by the Richmond Department of Children and Youth (RDCY), RFCY funded 56
programs implemented by 46 grantee organiza-
tions, spanning services in mental and behavioral
health, education and employment, out-ofschool time, violence prevention, access to basic needs, and case management. This evaluation—
conducted by WestEd—provides a comprehensive
assessment of the reach, quality, and outcomes
of RFCY-funded programs, as well as recommen-
dations for future improvement.
1 Each grantee reported the number of youth served at their organization per quarter, described in this report using the term “encounter.” Participants are duplicated in these counts if they participated in more than one funded program or attended their programs for more than a quarter. Given that there are about 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, the data suggest that RFCY program participants attended more than one program and/or a single program for more than one quarter.

Key Achievements • Widespread Reach: There were over 58,000 children and youth encounters
1 across
120 sites throughout Richmond, with high
representation from areas of greatest need.
• Equity-Focused Implementation: Programs
reached diverse groups, including Black,
Latinx, multilingual, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged youth. Many programs
embedded trauma-informed and culturally
responsive practices.
• Accessible Services: Many sites were
accessible by public transit, walkable for
youth, or supported by transportation
partnerships. Some grantees launched their
own bus routes to eliminate access barriers.
• Positive Youth Experience: Youth reported
high levels of satisfaction, belonging, and
connection with caring adults. Outcomes
included positive youth experiences related
to leadership, self-confidence, college and
career readiness, and mental health support.
• Support for Organizations: RFCY funding
helped grantees stabilize and expand
services, strengthen partnerships, and plan
for long-term sustainability. Several small
or emerging organizations successfully
expanded their reach and capacity.
1 1847
Implementation
Challenges
• Barriers to Outreach and Participation:

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

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

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

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

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

Future Impact
The RFCY has become a vital, equity-driven investment in Richmond’s children and youth-serving system, enabling organizations to deliver impactful, culturally relevant services. Continued improvements in systems coordination, grantee
support, and strategic communication—alongside
sustained flexible funding—will be key to maximizing RFCY’s long-term impact. 2 1848
Introduction
On June 5, 2018, Richmond
voters approved Measures E
and K, known as the Richmond
Kids First Initiative.

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

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

What is evaluation?
Evaluation provides an opportunity for an organization to share its story about the program; the people served; and the impact of the program on those who are served, their families, and the broader community.
3 1849
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 1850
Evaluation Questions
1 How and to what extent is the Fund
successfully building the capacity
of grantees?
2 What are successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities
and services?
3 How and to what extent are grant
funds used to expand program reach
and/or coverage?
4 How and to what extent is the RFCY
reducing service gaps in the city
of Richmond?
5 How and to what extent is the RFCY
facilitating high-quality programming?
6 How and to what extent are RFCYfunded programs promoting positive outcomes for program participants?
Evaluation Approach
The RFCY evaluation is designed to measure the
extent to which the RFCY is meeting its intended
goals. The evaluation plan was developed over 10
months in collaboration with the RDCY, the RFCY
Oversight Board, RFCY grantees, and Richmond
youth (see Appendix A for a description of evaluation plan development). During the evaluation planning phase, WestEd hosted listening sessions with grantees and co-developed evaluation instruments with the RFCY Oversight Board and
youth co-evaluators. WestEd also partnered with
a small group of grantees to pilot the participant
survey data collection process. During the data
collection and analysis stage, WestEd collaborated with the RDCY, RFCY Oversight Board, and co-evaluators to co-interpret evaluation data (see
Appendix B).

Data Sources
Detailed descriptions of data sources are found in Appendix C. *Youth surveys were administered to youth ages 11 and older, whereas parent surveys were administered only to parents of children ages 10 and younger. When funded, grantees were not explicitly required to participate in evaluation activities, and some programs did not have activities corresponding with data collection windows. Survey findings are not representative of all grantees, as only 40 percent of grantees administered surveys. 565
Participant
Surveys*
315
Grantee
Reports
38 Grantee
Surveys
6 Grantee
Focus
Groups
533 Youth surveys
32 Parent/guardian surveys
154 Quarterly narratives
78 Service provision reports
83 Demographic reports
5 1851
RFCY
Implementation
Summary
RDCY first awarded
grants on July 1, 2021.

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

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

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

Evaluation data show that the RFCY is increasing
access to services and supports for Richmond
children and youth by expanding the availability
and accessibility of services across the city. Funds
were used to cover a variety of costs, including
staff salaries, direct program costs, infrastructure and administrative costs, and staff training and professional development.
organizations
funded
46 grants
56 program
sites
121
dispersed
$9,124,257
of funded
programs utilize
volunteers
37%
programs
engage youth
long term
74%
youth
encounters
58,261
hours of
services
216,686
$1.6M
+19 new awards
+19 new awards
FY 2022–23
FY 2021–22
FY 2023–24
$3M
$4.5M
+18 new awards Nearly tripled since
FY 2021–22
RFCY Awards by Year
“The funding helps
a lot because as [a]
non-profit it’s pretty much impossible
to continue to pay
for everything yourself, especially as
your goals continue
to grow and as the
amount of people
you’re helping continues to grow.”
—Program Staff
6 1852
Program Reach
and Coverage
The RFCY has funded 56
programs that operate
across 118 different sites.

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

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

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

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

We can work not just with middle school students but also high school students and year round.”
—Program Manager
0 12,365
Population Under Age 18
Figure 2. Map of
RFCY Sites
7 1853
Figure 3. Home Zip Code of RFCY Participants
94801
94806
94804
94803
34% 15,149–15,212
Participants
34% 8,665–15,148
Participants
19%2,964–8,664
Participants
94805
7%2,800–2,963
Participants
6%2,799
Participants
Figure 4. RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Figure 5. RFCY Participant Ages
The majority of participants (62%) fell into the
6–12 age range. A small number of programs
served children 5 years old and under (Figure 5).

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

Female
55%
Male
43%
Unknown 1%
Non-Binary 1%
RFCY Participant Gender Identity
Birth–5
5%
Ages 6–12
62%
Ages 13–17
26%
Ages 18–24
7%
RFCY Participant Ages
Hispanic/Latino 46%
White 20%
Black 19%
Asian 6%
Mixed Race 4%
Other 5%
RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
8 1854
Program Highlight
The East Bay Center for Performing Arts
Young Artist Diploma Program (YADP)
was funded in FY 2021–24 to provide
cross-cultural performing arts programs. The
YDAP provides youth ages 7-12 with wraparound services to help youth experience art as a therapeutic outlet. For example, the
grantee partnered with the Contra Costa
Family Justice Center to help young artists
understand and address complex issues
related to violence in their communities.

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

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

Across Richmond’s six city council districts, district 3 has the most RFCY-funded program sites, followed by district 1. These districts are also those
with lowest COI, indicating areas of highest need.
“In West Contra Costa, we’re
contracted with WCCUSD, Bay
Area Community Resources, and
Expanded Learning. We work in
schools and with afterschool programs, but we also work at housing sites, clinics, community centers. So we’re really reaching youth in a lot of different settings.”
—Program Director
0 100
Child Opportunity Index Score
City Council District Boundaries
Child Opportunity Index 3.0
2020 Census Tracts
2021 Data
Figure 7. Child
Opportunity Index
Across Richmond
9 1855
Serving Children
and Youth at Easily
Accessible Locations
The majority of program sites are easily accessible via Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) buses and Richmond’s public shuttle service, Richmond Moves4 (Figure 8). Many are located in central Richmond and the Richmond
City Center—both of which are also accessible
by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Additionally,
several sites are situated in high-density neighborhoods, making them walkable for many local youth.

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

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

The school sites include 40 WCCUSD schools.

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

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

AC Transit bus routes
Figure 8. AC Transit Routes Across Richmond
10 1856
Program Highlight
Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) has a
long history of partnering with schools,
the County Office of Education, and
community-based organizations. The
RFCY has directly supported the expansion of this program to operate in more schools by providing resources for FLY to
strengthen partnerships with schools.

In the 2022-23 school year, FLY forged
a partnership with a new school site,
Sylvester Greenwood Academy, which
allowed the program to serve 24 new
at-promise and justice system-impacted
Richmond youth.
“[RFCY is the] kind of funding that
… has been creative in addressing
an issue that [is] usually something that is a second thought to all the other services, and it’s
specific for youth. It’s been really
empowering for our kids to hear
that this money is for them and
about them.”
—Resource Development Administrator
11 1857
Schools Who Partner With RFCY-Funded Programs
A Aspire Richmond Ca. College
Preparatory Academy
Aspire Richmond Technology Academy
B Betty Reid Soskin Middle School
C Caliber: Beta Academy
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary
Coronado Elementary School
D De Anza High School
Dover Elementary School
E Edward M. Downer Elementary School
El Cerrito High School
F Ford Elementary School
G Golden Gate Community School
Grant Elementary School
Greenwood Academy
H Helms Middle School
Highland Elementary School
J John F. Kennedy High School
L Lake Elementary School
Leadership Public Schools: Richmond
Lincoln Elementary School
Lovonya DeJean Middle School
M Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
School
Michelle Obama Elementary School
Mira Vista Elementary School
Montalvin Manor
Murphy Elementary School
N Nystrom Elementary School
O Olinda Elementary School
P Peres Elementary School
Pinole Middle School
R Richmond Charter Elementary-Benito
Juarez
Richmond College Prep
Richmond High School
Riverside Elementary School
S Sheldon Elementary School
Stege Elementary School
T Tara Hills Elementary School
V Verde Elementary School
Vista Virtual Elementary School
Voices College-Bound Language
Academy at West Contra Costa County
W Washington Elementary School
West County Mandarin School
“That’s one of our biggest
thing[s]—incorporating the parents and the youth into morphing us into something that they really want to come to and share with their friends and family.”
—Program Founder
“The administration at all of the
schools were excited and expressed that they had been
waiting for an opportunity like
this. They were quick to support
our integration into [their] sites
and to do their part to support
our implementation.”
—Grantee report
12 1858
Reducing Service
Gaps
RFCY supports a diverse array of
programs that address critical
service gaps in Richmond.

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

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

While each grantee organization receives funding for a specific program, the RFCY’s flexibility allows grantees to spend funds in ways that are
responsive to the community’s needs. For example, one program that offered support to parents in the form of parent workshops learned that
parents were hesitant about a group setting. In
response, the program began offering more individualized, one-on-one support. From adapting program models to shifting staff roles and incorporating youth feedback, grantees emphasized the importance of flexibility—especially in the
evolving, post-pandemic context.
“Because of this funding, our clinicians can more flexibly address the needs of the student, the school faculty, and promote
a more supportive and trauma-informed climate. The flexibility allows us to support youth and
their families ‘on the go,’ as the
needs arise, as often as needed,
and for as brief or as long a term
as needed.”
—Grantee Report
Addressing Basic Needs
RFCY-funded programs connected youth and
families to basic needs like transportation,
food and shelter, and access to technology
(Figure 9). Programs also trained participants in foundational skills such as financial management,
13 1859
public speaking, and navigation of the legal
system. Through these supports, programs facilitated positive short- and long-term outcomes for participants. One funded program, 18 Reasons,
shared that “participants are thankful for the food
provided through the program as well as the information on how to save money at the grocery store.” Parents/guardians were interested in programming for a variety of reasons. The most common reasons why parents/guardians enrolled their
child in the program was because they wanted
their child to participate in learning activities,
new experiences, and/or because the program
was free (Figure 10).

EducationRelated ServicesCounseling or
Other Mental
Health Services
Housing
Assistance
Medical or
Dental Care
Transportation
Tickets or Passes
Work-Appropriate
Clothing or
Work-Related
Equipment
Food AssistanceChildcare
35% 27% 25% 15%
14% 14% 10% 6%
Top Resources Received by Youth
Figure 9. Types of Resources Received by Youth
Note. Participants could select all that apply, so percentages do not add up to 100 percent. Parent/guardian survey respondents also reported that they were connected with worK–appropriate clothing or equipment (28%), childcare (25%), and education-related services (25%), alongside counseling (22%), food assistance (19%), housing assistance (16%), transportation assistance (16%), and medical or dental care (3%). 14 1860
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 1861
Programs by
Priority Area
Programs were funded under one of six priority areas that were identified through the 2020 Community Needs Assessment and Strategic
Investment Plan (see Figure 11): behavioral health:
mental health and wellness; education training
and employment/training support; out-of-school
time, after school, and sports and enrichment;
5 See Appendix D for full list of programs by priority area. Profiles of each funded program can be found in a supplemental file.
youth violence prevention; access to basic needs;
and information, guidance, and case management.5
Although each program was funded under
a single priority area, many grantees offered programming that crossed multiple priority areas.

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

Mental Health
& Wellness
Priority Area of Funded Programs
FYS 21–24
Figure 11. Priority Area of Funded Programs
16 1862
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 1863
• West County Mandarin School PTA: Social
and Emotional Learning Enrichment
• Richmond Community Foundation: Sister
Circle
• Seneca Family of Agencies: Unconditional
Education School Partnerships
• Desarrollo Familiar: Youth Matters Program
Program Highlight
Mindful Life Project (MLP) was funded
by RFCY in FY 2022–24. MLP provides
mindfulness-based programming for
teachers, parents, and elementary and
middle school students. MLP led mindfulness sessions for teachers both one-on-one and at staff meetings, and
it hosted family mindfulness sessions
during weekly school-hosted Family
Coffee Hours. In addition, MLP provided
age-appropriate mindfulness sessions at
partner schools. The TK–2nd grade lessons focused on understanding emotions and how to identify them when they
arise. The 3rd-5th grade lessons focused
on brain science and how different parts
of the brain affect emotional responses.

The 6th-8th grade lessons emphasized
independent learning.
18 1864
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 1865
• Improve Your Tomorrow: Support program
for young men
• Richmond Art Center: Supporting People’s
Outlooks, Talents, and Speech (SPOTS)
Mural Program
• Richmond Promise: Health Care Career
Connections for Richmond Promise Leaders
• Richmond Public Library: Drop-in homework
help and tutoring services
• Things That Creep: Neighborhood Snakes
program
• Urban Tilth: Urban Agriculture Academy
• Watershed Project: Green Collar Corps Youth
Employment Program
Program Highlight
The Watershed Project Green Collar Corps
was funded by RFCY in FY 2022–24. This
project funded 10 young people to participate in its program, which consisted of three components: team-building
field trips, a yearlong career development academy that provides training and project-based work experience,
and a community day. This program is
a career-building opportunity, particularly for high schoolers who face barriers to maintaining a balanced school, home,
and work life.

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

They can’t come after school. Or they
have to cook dinner for their younger
siblings in the evening. And so, thanks
to RFCY, we’re able to fund transportation, we’re able to fund meals, we’re able to fund materials and make it possible.”
20 1866
Out-of-School Time,
After School, Sports
and Enrichment
Funding Amount FY 21-24: $3,007,657
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 19,876
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded 20 programs to expand access
to out-of-school programs, increase year-round
learning opportunities, provide more diverse and
culturally relevant offerings, and increase no-cost
or subsidized programs at 47 sites.

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

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

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

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

Camp Achieve
• City of Richmond, Community Services:

Sports and Leadership Program
• Community Education Partnerships:

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

Young Artist Diploma Program
• Richmond Freedom School:

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

Oshi Entrepreneur Club
• Pogo Park: Enrichment Programs at Elm
Playlot
• Practice Space: Speak Together Be Together
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Community liaison
to support educational enrichment
programming
• Rosie the Riveter Trust: Rosie Service Corps
• RYSE: Integrative Arts Programming
• Scientific Adventures for Girls: After-school
STEM program at WCCUSD Schools
• Watershed Project: Educational program
support for WCCUSD teachers
• West County Digs: School Garden
Renewal Program
• Youth Code Now: After-school program
21 1867
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 1868
Youth Violence
Prevention
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $805,300
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 6,150
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to reduce the
number of youth who witness violence, become
involved in criminal activity, and perpetrate violence and bullying at 31 sites.

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

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

Counseling and Therapy Services
• Fresh Lifelines for Youth: Law-Related
Education
• Project Avary: Leadership Program for
Children of Incarcerated Parents
• Richmond Police Activities League: Youth
Diversion and Development program
Program Highlight
The Child Abuse Prevention Council
(CAPC) of Contra Costa County was
funded in FY 2021–24 to implement its
Speak Up Be Safe program and Nurturing
Parent Program. Speak Up Be Safe is a
culturally and linguistically competent
curriculum delivered to English- and
Spanish-speaking students at Cesar
Chavez, Lincoln, and Verde elementary
schools. The lessons teach children what
is and is not safe and when they should
talk to a safe adult. The Nurturing Parent
Program is a program for parents at Cesar
Chavez Elementary School that teaches
them about the protective factors for
child development. This multigenerational approach to interrupting violence is meaningful, as CAPC reported, “Parents
[shared] how their own parents raised
them and the parenting practices that
were normalized. … They acknowledged
their parents tried their best, and now
parents believe they have the opportunity to do better.” 23 1869
Access to Basic Needs
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $536,008
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 2,227
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded four programs to address the
basic needs of children and youth, such as housing, food security, childcare, transportation, and high-speed internet at 16 sites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This resource enables youth and their
families to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables from local farmers’ markets. 24 1870
Information, Guidance,
and Case Management
Funding Amount FY 2021–24: $620,000
Numbers of Participant Encounters: 1,077
94801
94806
94804
94805
94803
94503
The RFCY funded five programs to increase access
to information and build capacity for navigation
support, case management, and/or wraparound
services at 13 sites.

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

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

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

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

High School to Homeownership (H2H)
Program
• Youth Finance Institute of America: Personal
Finance Workshop Program
Program Highlight
Richmond Neighborhood Housing
Services (RNHS) was funded in FY 2023-
24 to partner with Youth Finance Institute
of America (YFIA) and create a program
to support Black youth’s financial progress toward home ownership. Workshops explored budgeting and credit management to give youth the knowledge needed to make sound financial decisions as they
become adults. In their partnership, RNHS
and YFIA combined their areas of expertise to host a workshop explaining the connection between two seemingly disparate financial decisions—purchasing one’s first car and future homeownership: “We tied this workshop to one day purchasing a home by showing how
buying a car you cannot afford can delay
or even prevent homeownership in the
future, [and also] how having access to
reliable transportation is key to obtaining and retaining employment.” At the end of its funding cycle, RNHS indicated
that 100 percent of participants reported
improved knowledge on topics related to
the homebuying process.
25 1871
Assessing the
Quality of Funded
Programs
Programs funded by RFCY
are expected to provide highquality programming, as
measured by a series of universal
performance measures. T hese performance measures capture how well a program is performing relative to a
benchmark value that indicates adequate per-
formance. Appendix A includes a table of all
performance measures and their associated
benchmarks, which were determined in partner-
ship with RDCY and RFCY grantees (see Appendix
B for a description of partner engagement pro-
cesses). Transformational change that promotes
program quality requires sustained investment
over multiple years. During this initial data col-
lection period, performance measures provided a
point-in-time snapshot of program quality, which 6 Survey respondents who indicated they were attending the program for the first time were primarily from four pro -
grams. These programs were all at schools/in partnership with schools, and most of these respondents were middle school aged (90% ages 11-14). Possible explanations include (a) the respondent has attended the program before but hasn’t known it by name if the program came in and the student didn’t distinguish it separately from regular school activities or (b) the student may have been absent last time the program worked with the school and truly has not interacted with the program before. In both cases, WestEd is collaborating with grantees to improve data collection procedures to ensure collected data is a valid representation of funded programs. is expected to improve over time with continued
funding and targeted support from RDCY.

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

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

The RDCY is developing technical assistance and
capacity-building offerings to support grant-
ees who fell below predetermined performance
benchmarks.
26 1872
Figure 12. Percentage of RFCY Grantees Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021–24
Program Satisfaction
Program Environment
Caring Adults
Sense of Belonging
92%
62%
62%
77%
Percent of RFCY Grantee Who Met
Performance Benchmarks, FY 2021-24
Note. The Figure above includes data from 13 grantees who had at least 10 youth survey responses.

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

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

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

Both neutral and negative ratings raise important questions about how youth are experiencing programs and what factors influence their experience in the program. WestEd and RDCY will explore these findings further in conversations
with community partners and grantees to better
understand youth perspectives and identify the
underlying causes. These insights will help shape
future supports—and, in some cases, required
improvements—to ensure quality programming
and more consistently positive experiences
for all youth.
27 1873
Participant Satisfaction
The majority of participants were satisfied with
the programs they attended (Figure 13). Outside
of the program satisfaction measures collected
as part of the RFCY evaluation, many grantees
collected their own program satisfaction data and
reported that, overall, their participants enjoyed
their programs. Youth participants expressed satisfaction with a range of programmatic aspects, including the loving and respectful community, the supportive structure, and the concrete skills gained. Most commonly, youth participants
expressed satisfaction through comments about
how “fun” or “safe” or “eye-opening” the program experience was for them. Similarly, the vast majority of parent survey respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that they liked the program,
they would recommend the program to another
parent, their child was interested in what they
do at the program, and they try new things (97%,
94%, 91%, and 94%, respectively). One youth participant from Fresh Lifelines for Youth shared their admiration for their program: “I honestly believe
the program organizers did a fantastic job and
deserve props for their hard work.”
Program Environment
RFCY funding has enabled most grantees to
create program environments that prioritize safety, support, creativity, and a sense of belonging (Figure 14). From green spaces to
in-school wellness centers, these environments
help youth feel secure, cared for, and empowered.

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

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

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

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

I am interested in what we do at
this program.

In this program, I try new things.

Participants Satisfaction With the Funded Programs
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 27%
5%
6%
6%
5%
5%
Figure 13. Participants’ Satisfaction With Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Fewer than 5 percent of participants fell into the “N/A” category for each item. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omission of “N/A” responses 28 1874
Caring Adults
Most RFCY grantees fostered strong, supportive networks of adults through programming that centered on youth well-being. Some did
this through behavioral health initiatives that
build trusting relationships with counselors
and mentors, while others offered arts enrichment programs in which youth connect with safe, caring instructors. A participant from the
East Bay Center for Performing Arts shared,
“The consistent instruction and support from
trusted adults is one of the most valuable
components of our program. … I call this place
my home away from home.” This sentiment
reflects a broader trend, as most youth indicated in surveys that they felt supported by caring adults in their programs (Figure 15).

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

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

Adults at this program
understand my family’s culture.

This place is a comfortable
place to hang out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 23% 36% 33%
24% 35% 32%
18% 38% 38%
6% 10% 28% 29% 26%
Figure 15. Participants’ Experiences With Adults in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 29 1875
Partnerships, students began referring to each
other as “cousins,” demonstrating a deep sense
of mutual support both within and beyond the
program.

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

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

I can usually be myself
in this program.

I feel like I matter
in this program.

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

Participants’ Sense of Belonging in their Program
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 7% 15% 17% 27% 29%
9% 13% 21% 23% 27%
7% 13% 22% 30% 21%
Figure 16. Participants’ Sense of Belonging in Their Programs Note. The chart above reflects 533 participant surveys from 22 funded programs. Participants who did not respond to the question or selected “Does Not Apply” were categorized as “N/A.” Totals may not equal 100 percent due to omission of “N/A” responses.
30 1876
Building Connections
• 93% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me learn how to get along with
others.”
• 87% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me make new friends.”
Leadership and Advocacy
• 94% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I better understand
solutions to problems in my community.”
• 90% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming to
this program, I am better at saying ‘no’
to things I know are wrong.”
• 88% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more aware about
what is going on in my community.”
• 82% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “since coming
to this program, I am more of a leader.”
College Preparation
• 83% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true
that “because of this
program, I understand
the steps I need to
take to get into
college.”
RFCY program participants formed meaningful
connections within supportive, nurturing environments.

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

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

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

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

Several programs awarded scholarships for study
in specific fields, such as the arts. Recognizing
that college preparation can be stressful, many
programs also integrated mental health services,
including case management and crisis intervention, to support students more holistically. From financial aid guidance and college campus tours
to “high school roadmaps,” RFCY grantees have
been using their funding to ensure youth of all
ages feel prepared, supported, and empowered
to pursue higher education.
“I feel like this program really pushes
me and encourages me into doing
my best.”
—East Bay Center for
the Performing Arts
participant, age 16
31 1877
Academic Success
• 67% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
makes learning fun.”
• 65% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “what I learn
at this program helps me be more
successful in school.”
• 56% reported it was somewhat, mostly
or completely true that “because of this
program, I am more motivated to learn
in school.”
Life Skills
• 95% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
helps me to think about the future.”
• 89% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “I have learned
new skills that will help me achieve my
goals.”
• 86% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “in this
program, I learn how to set goals and
meet them.”
RFCY-funded programs supported Richmond
youth in building both academic skills and confidence. Many grantees used project-based learning approaches to engage youth in real-world
challenges—such as identifying ways for communities to have access to clean water—that required critical thinking and creative problem-solving.

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

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

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

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

As a result, participants
reported feeling more
confident in their ability to
make healthy, informed decisions about their futures.
“You can express
yourself and you
can be yourself.“
—Community
Violence Solutions
participant, age 16
32 1878
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 1879
RFCY programs supported the physical, mental,
and emotional well-being of Richmond youth.

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

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

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

Physical, Mental, and
Emotional Health • 77% reported it was somewhat,
mostly, or completely true that “this
program has taught me to deal with my
problems in a positive way (like asking
for help).”
• 74% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
teaches me how to be healthy.”
• 71% reported it was somewhat, mostly,
or completely true that “this program
has helped me cope with stress.” “I feel like this program has helped me so much”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 16
34 1880
Grantee Approaches
to Assessing and
Improving Program
Quality
Grantees actively
measure impact and
participant learning
Many grantees administered their own participant surveys to track growth over the course of their programs. For instance, The Watershed
Project uses surveys to assess how participants’
learning progresses over time. Other grantees are
conducting impact evaluations, focusing on strategic planning, and establishing actionable goals to ensure their programs yield measurable
outcomes.

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

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

Many grantees also reported expanding their
partnerships with community organizations and
institutions, a reflection of the growing positive
public perception of RFCY-funded initiatives.
“[This is a] very
helpful program
for someone who
starts their
first job.”
—Bridges From
School to Work
participant, age 19
35 1881
Multiple grantees described
that schools were particularly committed to supporting RFCY-funded programs, which
helped facilitate smooth
program implementation: “The administration at all of the schools were excited
and expressed that
they had been waiting for an opportunity
like this. They were quick
to support our integration into
[their] sites and to do their part
to support our implementation.”
—Grantee Report
Grantees collect participant and community
feedback by the following:
• Conducting surveys and focus groups with
students, parents, or teachers (e.g., annual
program surveys, post-session surveys for
teachers and parents, literacy surveys
for youth)
• Engaging and elevating
community voice (e.g., Youth
Ambassador Programs, Youth
Committee, direct observation)
• Participating in ongoing
dialogue with partners and
collaborators (e.g., conversations
with school staff that provide deeper
insights into student needs or preferences)
Grantees responded to feedback in a variety
of ways:
• Adjusting program design to include different
age groups and/or the types of services
offered (Aim High, Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation; CEP; Bay Area Community
Resources; Watershed Project Educational
Programs; DREAM)
• Revising and/or developing curriculum to
address implementation barriers (18 Reasons,
Aim High)
• Engaging district officials for districtlevel endorsements to support school-level student outreach (Oshiana Unique Thompkins
Foundation)
• Expanding volunteer recruitment to fill
volunteer vacancies post-COVID (CEP)
• Revising internal evaluation tools to capture
reliable and valid participant feedback
(Things That Creep)
• Integrating feedback with broader
organizational goals and strategic planning
(RYSE)
“Community involvement in the
decision-making process ensures that the programs … truly reflect their needs and aspirations. Community voices are essential for creating relevant and
impactful programs.”
—Grantee Report
“I’ve had a big
change in how to
handle my emotions and know
that they’re in my
control.”
—Desarrollo Familiar
Participant, age 16
36 1882
RFCY Grants
Support
Programs’
Organizational
Capacity and
Sustainability
RFCY plays a vital role in
strengthening organizational
health and supporting
sustainable program models. While no more than 20 percent of the grant funds may be allocated to indi-
rect costs, grantees are using their indirect
allotment to cultivate meaningful partnerships,
enhance sustainable program design, build
organizational capacity, and engage in frequent
community engagement and robust program
evaluation. Collaborations with local schools,
community-based organizations, and the school
district allow grantees to share resources and
expertise, expand their reach, and deliver last-
ing support to youth and families. In addition,
grantees are actively diversifying their funding
streams to sustain and grow their efforts beyond
RFCY funding.
“This funding has given us the
opportunity to look forward and
plan ahead. ... [The fund is] giv-
ing back our voice because we’re
not limited on what we can do
and it gives us an opportunity
to look at new ways to do com-
munity outreach, look for other
sources of funding. It’s strength-
ening the partnerships with us
and other [community-based
organizations].”
—Program Coordinator
Capacity Building for
Grantees
When RFCY grantee organizations build their
internal capacity, children and youth directly
benefit from higher-quality programming. When
submitting their RFCY application, grantee annual
budgets ranged from $25,000 to over 151 million
dollars, with 42 percent of grantees having annual
budgets less than 1 million dollars. The funding
amount made up less than 10 percent of the
operating budget for most grantees (57%)
and added more than 50 percent to the
operating budgets for three grant-
ees. Because RFCY funding
37 1883
accounts for only a small percentage of most
grantees’ total operating budget, its ability to
drive immediate change may be limited. While the
funding may not be sufficient to scale programs,
invest in infrastructure, and support long-term
planning in the first funding year, over time, and
combined with other funding sources, RFCY can
contribute to each of these organizational goals.

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

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

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

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

Grantees partnered with healthcare professionals,
universities, and community-based organizations
to strengthen their staff’s capacity to meet the
needs of youth and families. For example, Rosie’s
Service Corps, which supports LGBTQ+ youth
facing fears around employment discrimination,
partnered with the Rainbow Community Center
to provide staff with specialized LGBTQ+ training. This collaboration helped ensure that staff were better equipped to offer inclusive, affirming support to the youth they serve. “While we have a plan in place to
facilitate more school and district
contracts, [RFCY] grant funding
remains essential to helping us
reach high-need student populations and increase our capacity to provide the highest-quality programming for Richmond students and take on more schools.” —Grantee Report
$1,581,457
administered to 9
collaborative programs
100% of grantees funded in FY 2021
or FY 2022 were re-funded the following fiscal year. Funding for FY 2025-28 shifted to a 3-year grant that does not
require grantees to reapply each year.
38 1884
“Effective communication and
collaboration among stakeholders—including school district officials, teachers, parents, and mentors—are vital. ... Addressing
communication gaps and fostering strong partnerships facilitates better coordination and support
for at-risk youth.”
—Grantee report
Collaboration Program Highlight
D.R.E.A.M. Financial Academy and Just
Imagine KidZ Literacy Project co-deliver
summer and after-school programs to
youth ages 8-17 on a variety of topics,
including financial literacy, STEM, and
Black history education. Before RFCY, the
program creators used their own money
to fund their offerings. During the 2022–
23 school year, the program served twice
as many children and youth than they had
originally proposed due to their collaborative funding model. During the 2023–24 school year, D.R.E.A.M. added another
collaboration with Junior Achievement
of Northern California to incorporate a
career exploration component to the
program.

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

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

24. Each program day included integrated
reading curriculum, enrichment activities,
intergenerational leadership development,
two meals and a snack, and field trips on
a weekly basis. Since becoming an RFCY
grantee, Richmond Freedom School became
sustainable by securing over $100,000 in
individual contributions, establishing a partnership with WCCUSD, and recruiting 60 volunteers. The director intends to pursue
additional grant opportunities and funds
from schools, faith-based organizations,
and community partnerships.
$559,957
administered to 8 small and
emerging programs
39 1885
Grantees’ Fiscal Health
and Sustainability
Multiyear RFCY funding
supported grantees’
planning and growth
The ability to receive RFCY funding over multiple years enables grantees to develop long-term business strategies and allocate resources
toward securing additional funding. Many grantees expressed enthusiasm about RFCY’s shift to a 3-year grant cycle beginning in FY 2025, noting
that this change will support more sustainable
investments in program improvement and organizational growth.

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

For example, some programs receive funding from
WCCUSD, which can only be used for students
enrolled in the district—excluding Richmond children and youth who attend other schools. RFCY funding helps bridge these gaps, ensuring more
equitable access to services across the community. Furthermore, emergent programs were able to leverage this data to secure additional funding.
40 1886
“When we tell people from different companies, ‘Hey, we’ve got the support of the Richmond
Fund for Children and Youth,’ that
helps us. That’s a big deal because
they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, the city is
actually supporting this program.’
So that not just legitimizes it, but
it makes them feel stronger about
supporting us.”
—Executive Director
“Additional funding sources allow
you to serve a greater variety of
kids. … We were able to take in
both charter students from the
city of Richmond as well as kids
that the school district will pay
for. And so again, with diversified
funding, you find a way to kind of
pay for everything in pieces.”
—Executive Director
41 1887
Implementation
Challenges
RFCY Grantees and the Richmond
Department for Children and
Youth experienced a variety
of challenges over the course
of their grant period.

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

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

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

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

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

Collaborating with schools and community organizations helped them identify optimal times and strategies for engaging participants and sharing
83% of grantees served more children and
youth than they had originally proposed.
83%
37% of grantees provided more hours of
services than they had originally proposed.
37%
42 1888
information. Partners also played a key role in
overcoming participation barriers—offering transportation support or helping with scheduling to increase accessibility.
“At the beginning of the project
... we faced significant challenges with youth recruitment and attendance … due to staffing constraints and limited partnerships for recruiting young adults for our
workshops. … Our initial struggles highlighted the necessity of building a robust recruitment
pipeline and establishing strong
community partnerships from
the outset.”
—Grantee report
Scheduling and
Communication Issues
With Partners
Grantees faced a range of challenges when partnering with school sites, particularly around communication and scheduling. Many reported
difficulties with timely information sharing and
misaligned calendars between their programs
and school partners. For example, one grantee
designed a 12-week program model but had to
adjust it for a school operating on an 8-week
quarter system. As a result, the program lost
about half of its participants for that quarter.

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

In some cases, staff shortages led to reduced
program offerings. This issue also extended to
grantees who relied heavily on consistent volunteer support, highlighting the broader impact of staffing gaps on program implementation.
“We were asked to complete a
new process with the district,
which prevented us from serving
students at [our originally proposed school] for most of the academic school year. Despite our immediate efforts to submit the
required paperwork, the response
was delayed in coming, so we focused our efforts on serving students at [another school]. We took the opportunity to implement curriculum at [the other school] and piloted a semester-long program.”
—Grantee report
“With staff transitions that took
place over the course of our
grant,] a number of our programs
have needed to either be put on
hold or be adjusted to account for
a decrease in staff.”
—Grantee report
43 1889
In addition, staffing changes within schools
sometimes delayed program implementation.

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

Overall, results from the grantee survey indicate
that grantees were generally satisfied with RDCY
staff (Figure 17).
5%
11%
24%
38%
Very Satisfied 22%
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Figure 17. Grantee’s Overall Satisfaction With
RDCY (N = 37)
44 1890
The majority of grantees indicated that RDCY
staff were valuable partners in their work (76%),
RDCY staff provided helpful guidance and feedback (73%), they felt comfortable approaching RDCY staff when problems arose (84%), and
they felt that RDCY provided valuable resources
and support that goes beyond grant funding
(54%; see Figure 18).

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

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

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

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

I view RDCY staff as valuable
partners in this work.

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

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

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

RDCY staff provide helpful
guidance and feedback.

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

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 16%
11%
16%
11%
32%
32%
11%
8%
11%
30%
51%
38%
30%
5% 35%
24%
32%
35%
46%
11%
Figure 18. RFCY Grantee’s Service and Support Satisfaction (N = 37) 45 1891
Recommendations
to Improve the
Richmond Fund
for Children and
Youth
As RFCY continues to fund
programs through FY 2027,
WestEd offers a set of
recommendations grounded in
evaluation findings and youth
development best practices. I
mplementing these strategies can enhance
RFCY’s impact on child- and youth-serving orga-
nizations and the communities they serve.

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

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

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

Promote Long-Term
Sustainability Planning
Encourage and support grantees to engage in
long-term strategic planning, diversify revenue
streams, and braid RFCY funds with other fund-
ing sources. This might include providing technical
assistance focused on administrative infrastruc-
ture, data reporting, and sustainable funding
strategies.
46 1892
Enhance
Communication and
Responsiveness
Improve clarity and consistency in communication with grantees, especially regarding invoicing, reporting requirements, and instructions about
forms. Build systems to expedite invoicing and
payments. Investing in staffing and systems at
RDCY will improve support and responsiveness.

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

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

Deepen Youth and
Community Voice
Continue and deepen participatory evaluation,
grant-making, and needs assessment efforts with
youth and community members. Their insights
led to more relevant, inclusive, and effective programming and should remain central in future evaluation and planning efforts. Grantees found
value in community and participant feedback
on their programs. Efforts to deepen youth
and community voice will support continuous
improvement and youth empowerment.
47 1893
Conclusion
The RFCY has made a
significant, measurable impact
on Richmond’s children,
youth, and families in its
first three funding cycles.

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

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

Although challenges persist, the commitment of
grantees, community partners, and the RDCY to
continuous improvement is evident. With sustained investment and ongoing collaboration, the RFCY is well positioned to deepen its impact
and advance its vision of a thriving, equitable
Richmond for all children and youth.
48 1894
Appendix A.

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

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

Table 1. Core Performance Measures for RFCY Grantees
Topic Measure Benchmark
Program participation Number of participants served as a percentage of the program’s projected number of participants 85%
Service provision hours
Number of hours of programming provided as a
percentage of the program’s projected hours of
programming
85%
Program satisfaction Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I would recommend this program to a friend.” > 50% Program environment Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly agreed, “I feel physically safe when I am at this program.” > 70% Caring adults
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “There is an adult at this program who cares
about me.”
> 70%
Sense of belonging
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed, “I have a strong sense of belonging to a
community at this program.”
> 50%
49 1895
Listening Sessions With
RFCY Grantees
In October 2023, WestEd facilitated two listening sessions with RFCY grantees representing all six priority areas. The sessions aimed to deepen
WestEd’s understanding of the diverse programs
funded by RFCY, the populations they serve, how
grantees utilize RFCY funds, and how their programs address the needs of children and youth.

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

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

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

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

Across six evaluation pilot programs, 40 youth
completed the youth experience survey and two
parents completed the parent survey. All six programs completed the grantee survey. WestEd presented pilot results to the RDCY and the RFCY
Oversight Board and made revisions to the participant surveys and the grantee survey based on feedback received.
50 1896
Appendix B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

These 13 youth were onboarded in February
2025 and contributed to the development of this
final report.
51 1897
Appendix C.

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

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

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

Of these, only 13 grantees had enough data for
performance monitoring and data featured on
program profiles (10 responses minimum). A
supplemental file lists the programs that administered the youth experience survey during this reporting period and shows which supplemental
modules were administered for each program.
52 1898
Grantee Focus Groups
To understand RFCY implementation, WestEd
conducted six 1-hour virtual focus groups with
33 RFCY-funded program managers and executives. The goal of the focus groups was to learn about the extent to which and how the RFCY is
successfully building the capacity of grantees and
to learn about the successes and challenges of
implementing RFCY-funded activities and services.

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

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

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

Grantee Survey
WestEd administered a survey to FY 2021–24
grantees to learn more about how RFCY and RDCY
has supported their organizational goals and their
needs for additional support. The survey was
administered to all RFCY grantees in December
2024. There were 37 respondents to the survey,
representing 33 organizations across all six priority
service areas. Overall, the survey had a 75 percent
response rate from grantee organizations funded
by RDCY between FY21 and FY24. Most survey
respondents were program leads/managers (47%),
followed by executive directors (30%) and program
staff (9%). Roles of the remaining respondents
(14%, categorized as “other”) included development manager, director of advancement, county director, and grant administrators.
53 1899
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 1900
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 1901
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 1902
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 1903
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 1904
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 1905
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 1906
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 1907
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 1908
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 1909
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 1910
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 1911
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 1912
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 1913

Page 1 of 3 ends

April 7, 2026
City Attorney's Office
DATE: April 7, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Shasa Curl, Richmond City Manager
Shannon L. Moore, Interim City Attorney
Kimberly Y. Chin, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Subject: Amending Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.30
regarding Use of City Resources for Civil Immigration
Enforcement
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Implementation of the proposed amendments to Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 is not expected
to result in significant immediate costs. Any staff time required to develop implementation procedures,
interdepartmental protocols, training materials, and
community-facing communications can be supported
within existing departmental operating budgets. Should
future resource needs arise beyond current capacity,
staff will return to the City Council with funding
recommendations as part of the annual budget
development process or through a separate appropriation request.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

February 3, 2026
March 3, 2026
March 17, 2026
March 24, 2026

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On February 3, 2026, the City Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney to return with a proposed IceFree Zone Ordinance. The proposed ordinance shall restrict the use of City-owned or City-controlled property, facilities, personnel, and resources for federal civil
immigration enforcement.

AGENDA
REPORT
1914

Page 2 of 3 ends

April 7, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) amending Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 to clarify
limitations on the use of city property, personnel, and resources for civil immigration enforcement and develop implementation procedures, including communications
plans, and reporting requirements – City Attorney’s Office (Shannon Moore 510-620-5509/Kimberly Chin 510-620-
6709).

DISCUSSION:

The City of Richmond has a long history of supporting and welcoming immigrant communities. This staff report is a follow-up to the February 3, 2026, City Council meeting, where direction was provided to the City Manager and City Attorney to return with a proposed ICE-Free Zone Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would amend Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 2.30 to further clarify the use of City, facilities, personnel, and resources for federal civil immigration enforcement activities, to the extent permitted by law. This includes prohibiting the use of City property as staging areas, processing or detention locations, or operational bases for such enforcement.

The ordinance also instructs City staff to develop non-cooperation and resource-denial policies consistent with applicable federal and state law and a coordinated implementation strategy, including interdepartmental protocols, staff training, and a community-facing preparedness and communications plan.

Amendments to Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.30
In March 2025, the City Council passed Ordinance 8-25 N.S., which added Chapter

2.30 to the RMC. Chapter 2.30 limits the use of City resources for federal immigration enforcement to the extent allowed by law. Specifically, RMC Section 2.30.030 provides that: “No City resources, including but not limited to City personnel and City property, shall be utilized to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law,” unless required by federal or state law. To further clarify the City’s limitations on the use of City resources, mainly City property, in relation to enforcement of federal immigration law, the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) has prepared proposed amendments to RMC Chapter

2.30 based on multiple meetings with City Councilmembers to discuss the scope, implementation considerations, and potential impacts of the proposed amendments.

The proposed amendments to RMC Chapter 2.30:
 Clarify the scope of limitations on the use of City property, including explicitly prohibiting its use as a staging area, processing location, or operational base for civil immigration enforcement activities;
 Further define and clarify what constitutes “use of City resources” for purposes of enforcement restrictions;
 Establish departmental responsibilities for implementation, including training employees on the provisions of RMC Chapter 2.30 and associated administrative procedures;
1915

Page 3 of 3 ends

April 7, 2026
 Formalize the development and implementation of a community-facing communications and preparedness plan; and
 Establish reporting requirements to monitor and document implementation of RMC Chapter 2.30.

This ordinance furthers the City’s interest in maintaining the relationship of trust between the City and all of its residents, including its immigrant community; protecting the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of its residents; ensuring effective policing; and directing the City’s limited resources to matters of the greatest concern. It is not intended to impede or interfere with lawful federal authority.

If the ordinance is introduced and approved at first reading on April 7, 2026, and no substantive changes are made, the second reading is anticipated to occur on April 28, 2026. The ordinance would take effect 30 days thereafter, on May 28, 2026.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance (Redline)
Attachment 2 – Proposed Ordinance (Clean)
1916
1 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
ORDINANCE NO. ___ N.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.30 OF THE RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE TO

CLARIFY LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY, PERSONNEL,

AND RESOURCES FOR CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND

DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES, INCLUDING

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The City Council for the City Richmond do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This Ordinance is authorized by the City’s authority under California Constitution, article XI, sections 5 (charter cities) and 7 (police power), and in conformity with California Senate Bill No. 54, codified in California Government Code Sections 7282 – 7284.10.

SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 2.30 of Article II of the Richmond Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 2.30.010 — City Council Findings and Declarations (a) The City of Richmond is home to people of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a large immigrant population.
(b) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the City of Richmond community.
(c) A relationship of trust between the City of Richmond’s immigrant community and the City of Richmond, its departments, programs, and personnel is central to the public safety of Richmond residents.
(d) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians, including Richmond residents. 1917
2 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
(e) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.
(f) There are legal concerns with leveraging the City of Richmond’s resources for federal immigration endeavors, including but not limited to the prospect of Richmond residents being detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
(g) California law, including the California Values Act (Government Code § 7284, et seq.), limits local involvement in civil immigration enforcement. (h) The City of Richmond has the authority to regulate the use of its own property, personnel, and municipal resources.
(i) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of Richmond residents, and to regulate the use of City resources and property, and to direct the City’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern, not to impede or interfere with lawful federal authority. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as a mandatory duty giving rise to liability against the City.

Section 2.30.020 – Definitions
For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
(a) “Administrative warrant” means a document issued by the federal agency charged with the enforcement of the Federal immigration law that is used as a non-criminal, civil warrant for immigration purposes.
(b) “Eligible for release from custody” means that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions has occurred:
(1) All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed. (2) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her.
(3) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence. (4) The individual has posted a bond or has been released on his or her own recognizance.
1918
3 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
(5) The individual has been referred to pre-trial diversion services. (6) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law. (c) “Citizenship or Immigration Status” shall mean all information or classification regarding citizenship of the United States or any other country, place of birth, the authority to reside in or otherwise be present in the United States, including visa status, and the time or manner of a person's entry into the United States.
(d) “City personnel” means any person employed by the City of Richmond, whether or not compensated, but does not include volunteers or independent contractors. (d)(e) “City property” means any real or personal property owned, leased, operated, or controlled by the City of Richmond, including but not limited to buildings, offices, workshops, storage yards, corporation yards, parks, parking lots, garages, vehicles, fueling stations, vacant lots, and equipment. (e)(f) “Civil immigration detainer” means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer under Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to a local law enforcement official to maintain custody of an individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours and advise the authorized federal immigration officer prior to the release of that individual. (f)(g) “Convicted” means the state of having been proved guilty in a judicial proceeding, unless the convictions have been expunged or vacated pursuant to applicable law. The date that an individual is Convicted starts from the date of release.
(g)(h) “Firearm” means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion as defined in Penal Code Section 16520.
(h)(i) “Immigration Agent” means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions including, but not limited to, agents employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S.

Customs and Border Protection.
(i)(j) “Immigration Enforcement” means any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law against natural persons, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a natural person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
1919
4 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
(j)(k) “Law enforcement official” means any City Department or officer or employee of a City Department, authorized to enforce criminal statutes, regulations, or local ordinances; operate jails or maintain custody of individuals in jails; and operate juvenile detention facilities or maintain custody of individuals in juvenile detention facilities.
(l) “Non-public areas of City property” means City property that is not generally open and accessible to the public, including but not limited to offices, internal corridors, meeting spaces, workshops, inside and outside storage areas, corporation yards, and fueling stations.
(k)(m) “Notification request” means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer to a local law enforcement official asking for notification to the authorized immigration officer of an individual's release from local custody prior to the release of an individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include informal requests for release information by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law. (n) “Personal information” means any confidential, identifying information about an individual, including, but not limited to, home or work contact information, and family or emergency contact information.
(l)(o) “Staging Area” means an area that is used to assemble, mobilize, and deploy vehicles, equipment, or materials, and related personnel, in a manner that is outside of regular business purposes or hours, or that disrupts or impedes its use for City purposes.

Section 2.30.030 – Limitations on the Use of City Resources.

Unless required by federal or state law, no City resources, including, but not limited to, City personnel and City property, shall be utilized to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding release status of individuals or any other such personal information as defined in Section

2.030.20, unless such assistance is required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Section shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, unless such information is necessary to provide a City service, including the provision of immigration and naturalization assistance, for election-related purposes or appointment to a City office or commission, or as required for purposes of City employment or the disbursement of City funds. (b) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, detention or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, conducted by the federal agency charged with enforcement of federal immigration law and relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration law, except as 1920
5 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
permitted under this Chapter 2.30 and applicable state or federal law. (c) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance, or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City, state, or federal criminal laws.
(d) Requesting information about, or disseminating information, in one's official capacity, regarding the release status of any individual, except as permitted under this Chapter 2.30, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City upon immigration status, except as required by federal or state statute or regulation, City public assistance criteria, or applicable court decision. (e) Providing any Immigration Agent access to any non-public areas of City property owned or controlled by the City for the purpose of Immigration Enforcement. (f) Allowing City property to be used as a staging area, processing location, or operational base for Immigration Enforcement.
(e)(g) Providing City personnel, funds, equipment storage, communication systems, data systems, office space, parking access, or other resources for Immigration Enforcement.

Section 2.30.040 – Limitations on Law Enforcement Officials (a) The City of Richmond’s Police Department, consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a), shall not:
(1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.
(B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request. (C) Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public or is in response to a notification request from immigration agents in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.
(D) Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil 1921
6 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
immigration warrants.
(E) Assisting immigration agents in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(F) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal. (2) Place Richmond police officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All Richmond police officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies adopted by the City of Richmond. (3) Use immigration agents as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody. (4) Transfer an individual to immigration agents unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5.
(5) Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration agents for use within a Police Department facility.
(6) Contract with the federal government for use of Police Department facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 7310).
(b) Notwithstanding the limitations in subsection (a), this section is not intended to prevent personnel or officers of the City of Richmond’s Police Department from taking actions consistent with or permitted by federal and state law, including, but not limited to, those actions enumerated within California Government Code Sections 7282.5 and 7284.6(b)-(e), as amended.

Section 2.30.050 – Confidentiality and Protection of City Data.

Except as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1373 or other applicable federal or state law, no City personnel or law enforcement official shall provide access to any City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status to any Immigration Agent. In furtherance of this restriction, as of the effective date of this ordinance, City personnel shall not provide City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status to any City contractor unless the contractor first agrees in writing to prohibit the contractor's employees and subcontractors from providing that data or information to any 1922
7 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
Immigration Agent, to the extent permitted by law. All City employees shall treat information that can be used to distinguish or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status, either on its own or when combined with other information, as confidential information, to the extent permitted by law.

Section 2.30.060 – Judicial Warrants and Presiding Law.

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the City or City personnel from complying with a valid warrant issued by a federal or state judge, or other order evidencing a judicial determination of probable cause, nor shall this chapter prohibit the City or its personnel from complying with state or federal law.

Section 2.30.070 – Communications
The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney and with input from the public, shall develop a communications plan to provide information to the public in the event of verified Immigration Enforcement within the City of Richmond. This communications plan shall be reviewed and updated as needed. Nothing in this section shall be construed as a mandatory duty.

Section 2.30.080 – Implementation and Reporting
(a) The City Manager or his or her designee shall develop administrative procedures, which include the communications plan, to implement this chapter. These administrative procedures shall be reviewed and updated as needed. (b) The City Manager or his or her designee shall ensure all City personnel receive training on the provisions of this chapter, including any administrative procedures.
(c) The City Manager or his or her designee shall develop signage for City property indicating City property cannot be used for non-City purposes, including Immigration Enforcement, and install such signage on City property as needed. (d) Every city department shall designate non-public areas of City property within its control with signage and review and update such designations as needed. (e) City personnel shall promptly report the presence of any Immigration Agent or any Immigration Enforcement on City property to their department head and the City Attorney’s Office.
(f) City personnel shall promptly report any attempted use of City property for Immigration Enforcement to their department head and the City Attorney’s Office.
(g) The City Manager or his or her designee shall provide an annual informational 1923
8 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
report to the City Council by May 1, beginning May 1, 2027, regarding the implementation of this chapter.
(a)(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed as a mandatory duty.

SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because: (i) it is not a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, section 21065 because it has no potential to alter the physical environment; (ii) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption, for this same reason.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage and adoption.
*****************************
(This section to be completed by Clerk’s Office)
First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held on _____________ and finally passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on ___________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:
________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)
1924
9 DocID #68043v3DocID #68043v3
Approved:
_______________________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
1925
1 DocID #68043v3
ORDINANCE NO. ___ N.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.30 OF THE RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE TO

CLARIFY LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY, PERSONNEL,

AND RESOURCES FOR CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND

DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES, INCLUDING

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The City Council for the City Richmond do ordain as follows:

SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 2.30 of Article II of the Richmond Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 2.30.010 — City Council Findings and Declarations (a) The City of Richmond is home to people of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including a large immigrant population.
(b) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the City of Richmond community.
(c) A relationship of trust between the City of Richmond’s immigrant community and the City of Richmond, its departments, programs, and personnel is central to the public safety of Richmond residents.
(d) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians, including Richmond residents. 1926
2 DocID #68043v3
(e) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.
(f) There are legal concerns with leveraging the City of Richmond’s resources for federal immigration endeavors, including but not limited to the prospect of Richmond residents being detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
(g) California law, including the California Values Act (Government Code § 7284, et seq.), limits local involvement in civil immigration enforcement. (h) The City of Richmond has the authority to regulate the use of its own property, personnel, and municipal resources.
(i) This chapter seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of Richmond residents, to regulate the use of City resources and property, and to direct the City’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern, not to impede or interfere with lawful federal authority. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as a mandatory duty giving rise to liability against the City.

Section 2.30.020 – Definitions
For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
(a) “Administrative warrant” means a document issued by the federal agency charged with the enforcement of the Federal immigration law that is used as a non-criminal, civil warrant for immigration purposes.
(b) “Eligible for release from custody” means that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions has occurred:
(1) All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed. (2) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her.
(3) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence. (4) The individual has posted a bond or has been released on his or her own recognizance.
1927
3 DocID #68043v3
(5) The individual has been referred to pre-trial diversion services. (6) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law. (c) “Citizenship or Immigration Status” shall mean all information or classification regarding citizenship of the United States or any other country, place of birth, the authority to reside in or otherwise be present in the United States, including visa status, and the time or manner of a person's entry into the United States.
(d) “City personnel” means any person employed by the City of Richmond, whether or not compensated, but does not include volunteers or independent contractors. (e) “City property” means any real or personal property owned, leased, operated, or controlled by the City of Richmond, including but not limited to buildings, offices, workshops, storage yards, corporation yards, parks, parking lots, garages, vehicles, fueling stations, vacant lots, and equipment. (f) “Civil immigration detainer” means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer under Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to a local law enforcement official to maintain custody of an individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours and advise the authorized federal immigration officer prior to the release of that individual. (g) “Convicted” means the state of having been proved guilty in a judicial proceeding, unless the convictions have been expunged or vacated pursuant to applicable law. The date that an individual is Convicted starts from the date of release.
(h) “Firearm” means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion as defined in Penal Code Section 16520.
(i) “Immigration Agent” means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions including, but not limited to, agents employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S.

Customs and Border Protection.
(j) “Immigration Enforcement” means any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law against natural persons, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a natural person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
1928
4 DocID #68043v3
(k) “Law enforcement official” means any City Department or officer or employee of a City Department, authorized to enforce criminal statutes, regulations, or local ordinances; operate jails or maintain custody of individuals in jails; and operate juvenile detention facilities or maintain custody of individuals in juvenile detention facilities.
(l) “Non-public areas of City property” means City property that is not generally open and accessible to the public, including but not limited to offices, internal corridors, meeting spaces, workshops, inside and outside storage areas, corporation yards, and fueling stations.
(m) “Notification request” means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer to a local law enforcement official asking for notification to the authorized immigration officer of an individual's release from local custody prior to the release of an individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include informal requests for release information by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law. (n) “Personal information” means any confidential, identifying information about an individual, including, but not limited to, home or work contact information, and family or emergency contact information.
(o) “Staging Area” means an area that is used to assemble, mobilize, and deploy vehicles, equipment, or materials, and related personnel, in a manner that is outside of regular business purposes or hours, or that disrupts or impedes its use for City purposes.

Section 2.30.030 – Limitations on the Use of City Resources.

2.030.20, unless such assistance is required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Section shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s Citizenship or Immigration Status, unless such information is necessary to provide a City service, including the provision of immigration and naturalization assistance, for election-related purposes or appointment to a City office or commission, or as required for purposes of City employment or the disbursement of City funds. (b) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, detention or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, conducted by the federal agency charged with enforcement of federal immigration law and relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration law, except as 1929
5 DocID #68043v3
permitted under this Chapter 2.30 and applicable state or federal law. (c) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance, or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City, state, or federal criminal laws.
(d) Requesting information about, or disseminating information, in one's official capacity, regarding the release status of any individual, except as permitted under this Chapter 2.30, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City upon immigration status, except as required by federal or state statute or regulation, City public assistance criteria, or applicable court decision. (e) Providing any Immigration Agent access to any non-public areas of City property for the purpose of Immigration Enforcement.
(f) Allowing City property to be used as a staging area, processing location, or operational base for Immigration Enforcement.
(g) Providing City personnel, funds, equipment storage, communication systems, data systems, office space, parking access, or other resources for Immigration Enforcement.

Section 2.30.040 – Limitations on Law Enforcement Officials (a) The City of Richmond’s Police Department, consistent with California Government Code section 7284.6(a), shall not:
(1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.
(B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request. (C) Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public or is in response to a notification request from immigration agents in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.
(D) Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil 1930
6 DocID #68043v3
immigration warrants.
(E) Assisting immigration agents in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(F) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal. (2) Place Richmond police officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All Richmond police officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies adopted by the City of Richmond. (3) Use immigration agents as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody. (4) Transfer an individual to immigration agents unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with California Government Code Section 7282.5.
(5) Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration agents for use within a Police Department facility.
(6) Contract with the federal government for use of Police Department facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 7310).
(b) Notwithstanding the limitations in subsection (a), this section is not intended to prevent personnel or officers of the City of Richmond’s Police Department from taking actions consistent with or permitted by federal and state law, including, but not limited to, those actions enumerated within California Government Code Sections 7282.5 and 7284.6(b)-(e), as amended.

Section 2.30.050 – Confidentiality and Protection of City Data.

Except as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1373 or other applicable federal or state law, no City personnel or law enforcement official shall provide access to any City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status to any Immigration Agent. In furtherance of this restriction, as of the effective date of this ordinance, City personnel shall not provide City data or information that can be used to determine or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status to any City contractor unless the contractor first agrees in writing to prohibit the contractor's employees and subcontractors from providing that data or information to any 1931
7 DocID #68043v3
Immigration Agent, to the extent permitted by law. All City employees shall treat information that can be used to distinguish or trace a person's Citizenship or Immigration Status, either on its own or when combined with other information, as confidential information, to the extent permitted by law.

Section 2.30.060 – Judicial Warrants and Presiding Law.

Section 2.30.080 – Implementation and Reporting
(a) The City Manager or his or her designee shall develop administrative procedures, which include the communications plan, to implement this chapter. These administrative procedures shall be reviewed and updated as needed. (b) The City Manager or his or her designee shall ensure all City personnel receive training on the provisions of this chapter, including any administrative procedures.
(c) The City Manager or his or her designee shall develop signage for City property indicating City property cannot be used for non-City purposes, including Immigration Enforcement, and install such signage on City property as needed. (d) Every city department shall designate non-public areas of City property within its control with signage and review and update such designations as needed. (e) City personnel shall promptly report the presence of any Immigration Agent or any Immigration Enforcement on City property to their department head and the City Attorney’s Office.
(f) City personnel shall promptly report any attempted use of City property for Immigration Enforcement to their department head and the City Attorney’s Office.
(g) The City Manager or his or her designee shall provide an annual informational 1932
8 DocID #68043v3
report to the City Council by May 1, beginning May 1, 2027, regarding the implementation of this chapter.
(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed as a mandatory duty.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:
________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)
Approved:
1933
9 DocID #68043v3
_______________________________
Mayor
Approved as to form:
____________________________
City Attorney
1934

Richmond City CouncilApril 7, 2026

Richmond City Council
April 7, 2026