Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
2025 Evaluation Findings
Prepared for Richmond City Council
September 22, 2026
D
R
A
F
T
The RFCY Evaluation Team
Nicole Tirado-Strayer, PhD
Co-Director
Alexis Grant, PhD
Co-Director
Cynthia Huynh Tuyet Tran Alex Briar
3 Agenda
Introduction
2025 Evaluation Findings
Recommendations
Looking Forward
Question Section
Why is the term “encounter” used
instead of “participants”?
Expanding program reach
and/or coverage
How do we know the Fund is serving
Richmond residents?
Expanding program reach
and/or coverage
How are grantees held accountable? Facilitating high-quality programming
Why not measure outcomes like test
scores to assess impact?
Promoting positive
outcomes for program
participants
4 Top Questions
RFCY Theory of Change
5 Outcomes
Expanding program
reach and/or
coverage
Reducing service
gaps
Facilitating highquality programming
Promoting positive
outcomes for program
participants
Building the capacity of
grantees 6
Evaluation Methods
7 2025 Evaluation
Findings
Summary of the RFCY
Allocated Funds:
$6,734,835 in 2025
$15,859,092 to date
9 “By having consistent
funding, organizations
can plan for
sustainability over time
and focus on
continuously improving
programs.”
—Grantee focus
group member
2025 RFCY Implementation at a Glance
2025–2027 Funding Areas
11 Expanding
program
reach
and/or
coverage
12 In 2025, there were over 100 program
sites.
13 14
Grantees provided over 29,500 hours of
programming to Richmond residents.
“My experience was amazing. I
met some of my closest friends
through this program and
people I can talk to and [I
learned] many skills.”
—YES Nature to
Neighborhoods participant,
age 15
• Unduplicated counts within programs due
to client-level tracking
• Participant identifiers not shared across
organizations under the current reporting
structure
• Not possible to determine whether the same
person participated in multiple programs
• Participant encounters describe duplicated
counts across programs
• Grantees instructed to report only Richmond
residents
15 What is a participant encounter?
RFCY grantees had over 15,000
encounters with Richmond children
and youth.
16 Reducing
service
gaps
17 Needs Addressed by 2025–2027 Grants
Mental and Behavioral Health
Physical Health and Wellness
Learning Needs
Safety, Belonging, and Community
Connective and Supportive Services
Consistent
programming
Supports for
diverse needs
Geographic
accessibility
“
19 Reducing Service Gaps
Families responded strongly to services that were
flexible, multilingual, and delivered with cultural
humility… Access isn’t just about availability; it’s
about design that respects lived reality.”
—Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Report
The Fund is reaching communities with the
highest needs.
20 Geographically Accessible Programs
“The unmet need for safe,
free youth programming is
profound in a community
where 6,620 children lack
access to quality summer
programs—the demand for
enriching, free activities is
huge.”
—Pogo Park report
Facilitating
high-quality
programming
Grantee Performance Measures
Domain Measure Benchmark
Program
participation
Number of participants served as a percentage of
the program’s projected number of participants
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 said it was
somewhat, mostly, or completely true that “I
have a strong sense of belonging to a community
at this program.”
50%
22 Percentage of Grantees Who Met
Performance Benchmarks
23 Note. Totals for survey-derived performance measures account for 28 grantees with at least 10 participant surveys, which make up 76% of funded programs. • Caring Adults
• Program Environment
24 Variation Across Measures
• Program Satisfaction
• Sense of Belonging
Higher Benchmark Lower Benchmark
Why is there variation, and
how will the RDCY respond?
• Early and frequent performance monitoring
• Growth and Improvement Planning (GIP) is the
process conducted with grantees who do not meet
performance benchmarks.
- Root cause?
- Action plan
• Technical Assistance and Capacity Building
(TA/CB) is designed to help programs improve in
areas they need support.
- Intensive
- Targeted
- Universal
25 Responding to Low Performance
Promoting
positive
outcomes for
program
participants
Positive Outcomes Across Every
Domain Measured
85%
Academic Success
say the program helps them
succeed in school
86%
Health & Wellbeing
learned to deal with
problems in positive ways
90%
Career Readiness
learned to work
independently with focus
88%
Building Connections
made new friends through
the program
92%
Leadership Development
say they better understand
solutions to community
problems
83%
Life Skills
learned skills that help them
achieve their goals
Findings should be read as early indicators—Year 1 of a 3-year cycle. 27 65% surveyed youth connected to at least one resource 70% surveyed parents connected to at least one resource Programs Connect Families to
Broader Supports
Types of Resources Participants Reported Being Connected To 28 Organizational and
Systems-Level Impact
How RFCY funding is strengthening Richmond’s youth-serving ecosystem
Building
the
capacity
of
grantees
• Organizational sustainability
• Partnerships, collaboration, and collective
impact
RFCY Strengthened Organizations’ Capacity
to Provide High-Quality Programming
“RFCY is the largest and most stable source of funding for the community—it really allows us to change our thinking about how we’re planning for the future.”
—Grantee focus group member
31 • School and district partnerships
• Recruitment, retention, and attendance
• Space and infrastructure limitations
• Organizational capacity for administration and
compliance
• Staffing constraints
• Resource limitations and community stressors
32 Despite Many Successes, Some
Challenges Remain for Grantees
Fund Administration
2025 coincided with significant growth and
transition within the RDCY—closing out the
prior cycle while launching the new one.
34 Fund Administration:
Strengths and Opportunities
86%
of grantees felt
comfortable reaching
out to RDCY when
challenges arose
74%
of grantees received
helpful guidance and
feedback from RDCY
staff
46%
of grantees rated RDCY
worse than other
funders on processing
agreements/invoices
In 2025, RDCY implemented a new grants
management platform.
35 Required Reporting
66%
reported that the grants management
system is easy to navigate
The use of Submittable is a big improvement.
However, the amount of reporting for any given
year is challenging.”
—RFCY grantee
“
Clear expectations
36 RFCY Evaluation
91%
100%
97%
WestEd is responsive to questions
Well-supported to complete evaluation activities
76% Easy to collect service provision data
Requested Evaluation TA
• Internal program evaluation
• Survey development
• Qualitative data collection
• Data analysis for program improvement
Conclusions
Recommendations
Improve Access & Engagement
Strengthen Program Quality Through Targeted Technical Assistance Strengthen Organizational Capacity & Sustainability
Strengthen School and Community Partnerships
Strengthen Data Infrastructure & Build Grant Monitoring Capacity 38 • 2026 and 2027 evaluations will track whether
outcomes and program quality strengthen as the
cycle matures.
• A cumulative report in 2028 will speak to longer
term impacts and trends over time.
39 Looking Ahead
Special thanks to our evaluation partners
13 youth co-evaluators
RFCY Oversight Board
RFCY grantees
RDCY staff
Questions?
Alexis Grant
[email protected]
Nicole Tirado-Strayer
[email protected]