2025
Richmond Fund for
Children and Youth
Annual
Evaluation
Report
Photo courtesy of The Black Neighborhood. ©2026
This report was prepared under Contract 6896 from the City of Richmond, CA, 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. © 2026 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. iii
Executive Summary
The Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY, also referred to as “the Fund”), overseen by the Richmond Department of Children and Youth, invests in community-based organizations that support the health, wellbeing, safety, learning, and long-term success of Richmond, California, and Unincorporated North Richmond children, youth, and families. This report presents findings from calendar year 2025, the 1st year of the grant program’s 2025–2027 funding cycle. The report examines program implementation, participant experiences, emerging outcomes, and organizational and community-level outcomes associated with RFCY investments. organizations
funded
36 grants
37 program
sites
107
dispersed
$6,734,835
participant
encounters
15,774
hours of
services
29,534
Key Findings
Photo courtesy of The Hidden Genius Project. ©2026
The Fund Expanded
Access to Services and
Opportunities.
In 2025, RFCY-funded organizations delivered a
wide range of services and supports to Richmond
and North Richmond residents. Funded programs focused on academic enrichment, youth leadership development, behavioral health services, mentoring, workforce development, family support services, violence prevention, and recreational programming. Programs operated in schools, community centers, parks, libraries, and
other neighborhood-based locations, helping to
reduce barriers related to transportation, cost,
and accessibility. These programs were concentrated in areas of Richmond with lower levels of child opportunity, indicating that RFCY investments are reaching communities most in need of programming for children and youth.
Participants Reported
Positive Experiences
and Outcomes.
Participants consistently reported positive experiences across RFCY-funded programs. Many youth described programs as safe, welcoming environments where they felt supported by caring adults and connected to their peers. Most participants
reported high levels of satisfaction with their program experience and indicated that they would recommend their program to others.
Findings also suggest that RFCY-funded programs
are contributing to positive program-aligned outcomes. Participants consistently reported growth related to social connectedness, leadership development, wellbeing, preparation for adulthood, and access to supportive resources. Youth frequently
reported that programs helped them build relationships, develop leadership skills, strengthen coping strategies, and feel more prepared for
future educational and career opportunities.
While findings were generally positive across outcome areas, results also revealed opportunities to continue strengthening program quality to better
support positive outcomes for all program participants. These findings can be used to inform continuous improvement and future technical
assistance efforts.
The Fund Strengthened
Community Organizations
and Local Support Systems.
Beyond participant-level outcomes, findings suggest that funding is helping to strengthen the broader network of organizations and partnerships that support Richmond youth and families.
In focus groups, grantees consistently described
RFCY funding as flexible, stabilizing, and community centered. Many organizations emphasized that multiyear funding allowed them to reduce
service disruption, strengthen staffing capacity,
expand access to programs and services, build
community relationships, and plan for the future.
Organizations also highlighted the value of collaboration with schools and other local partners. Many described the Fund as helping to create stronger connections across Richmond’s youth-serving ecosystem and supporting coordinated efforts
to address the complex needs of children, youth,
and families.
At the same time, grantees reported ongoing
challenges related to their organization’s staffing,
administrative capacity, and data reporting requirements and related to an increase of community need. These findings underscore both the importance of investments and the continuing need to build the capacity of funded organizations.
iv Photo courtesy of Bay Area Girls Club. ©2026
Opportunities for Improvement and
Recommendations
The evaluation identified several opportunities to strengthen implementation and maximize the long-term impact of investments. z School and Community Partnerships:
Strengthen coordination through clearer
processes, aligned calendars, data-sharing
agreements, and designated points of contact
to reduce disruption from staff turnover.
z Data Infrastructure and Grant Monitoring:
Refine the grant management system and
reporting processes, standardize metric
definitions, and build routine data-quality
monitoring to improve accountability while
easing grantee burden.
z Access and Engagement: Continue
monitoring geographic service gaps and
expand transportation and flexible, culturally
responsive program models to reduce
participation barriers.
z Program Quality: Use survey and
performance data to inform the development
of technical assistance, training, and peer
learning that build grantee capacity in youth
development and evidence-based practices.
z Organizational Capacity and Sustainability:
Support programs’ efforts to diversify their
funding, build administrative infrastructure,
and grow evaluation capacity building, with
tailored support for small and emerging
organizations facing operational challenges.
Photo courtesy of Growing Together Bay Area. ©2026 v
Conclusion
Findings from the 1st calendar year of the 2025–2027 funding cycle provide encouraging evidence that RFCY-funded programs are reaching Richmond youth and families, delivering high-quality services, and contributing to positive participant experiences and outcomes. While opportunities remain to strengthen fund administration, data systems, and organizational capacity, the findings suggest that the Fund is helping to build the relationships, supports, and community infrastructure needed to advance positive outcomes for children, youth, and families across Richmond and North Richmond. vi Photo courtesy of Things That Creep. ©2026
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
Key Findings iii
Opportunities for Improvement and Recommendations v
Conclusion vi
Introduction 1
The Fund Theory of Change 2
The RFCY Evaluation 3
2025 RFCY-Funded Program Implementation 5
The Funded Programs 6
Program Sites 12
RFCY Service Provision, Youth Encounters,
and Participant Demographics 14
Participant Experiences
and Program Quality 16
Participant Outcomes and
Early Indicators of Impact 26
Academic Success 27
Physical, Mental, and Emotional Health 28
Career Readiness, Employment, and
Postsecondary Success 29
Building Connections 30
Leadership Development 31
Life Skills 32
Connective Supportive Services 33
Overall Patterns in Participant Outcomes 35
Organizational, Community, and
Systems-Level Findings 36
Reducing Service Gaps 37
Strengthening Organizational Capacity
and Sustainability 39
Strengthening Community Engagement,
Partnerships, and Collective Impact 42
Summarizing Early Organization-, Community-,
and Systems-Level Impacts 43
Implementation Challenges 44
vii
Fund Administration 45
Administrative Capacity 45
Data and Reporting Infrastructure 47
Evaluation and Continuous Learning 47
Recommendations for Strengthening
RFCY Implementation and Impact 48
Improve Access and Engagement 48
Strengthen Program Quality Through
Targeted Technical Assistance 48
Strengthen Organizational Capacity and Sustainability 49 Strengthen School and Community Partnerships 49
Strengthen Data Infrastructure and Build Capacity
for Grant Monitoring 49
Conclusion 50
References 51
Appendix A. Funded Programs by Priority Area 54
Appendix B. List of Program Sites
by Organization 57
Appendix C. List of Program Sites by
City Council District 62
District 1 62
District 2 63
District 3 64
District 4 65
District 5 66
District 6 66
North Richmond 67
Outside of Richmond 67
viii
Youth (RDCY) manages the Fund grant program.
RDCY staff also provide direct support to grantees through grant-writing workshops and other technical assistance.
The Fund supports a diverse portfolio of programs
that address a wide range of community needs.
Funded organizations provide programs that include
mental and behavioral health services, academic
enrichment, career and workforce development,
violence prevention, arts and recreation programming, mentoring, family support services, and resource navigation. Together, these programs aim
to strengthen protective factors, expand access
to opportunities and supports, and address barriers that can negatively affect youth development and wellbeing.
The Fund is grounded in principles of positive youth
development, which emphasize the importance of
providing young people with supportive relationships, opportunities for skill-building and leadership, safe and inclusive environments, and meaningful engagement in their communities. Research consistently demonstrates that access to these
developmental supports contributes to improved
academic, social, emotional, and health outcomes
and helps young people build the skills and resilience
needed to thrive (Child Trends, 2009; Gootman &
Eccles, 2002; Mathematica, 2019; Naftzger, 2025;
Sandoval & Bowers, 2025).
This report presents findings from the 2025 RFCY
evaluation, covering the 1st calendar year of the
Fund implementation for the 2025–2027 grant
cycle. In 2025, the Fund awarded 37 grants to 36
organizations serving children, youth, young adults,
and families across Richmond and North Richmond.
The grant funds are being distributed over 3 years.
WestEd is contracted to conduct annual evaluations of the Fund and to report on findings through 2027. As the first report in the current funding cycle, this evaluation report focuses primarily on program
implementation, reach, participant experiences,
and emerging outcomes. Because many funded
programs are in the early stages of implementation,
and systems-level change takes time to materialize, findings related to participant and community outcomes should be viewed as preliminary indicators of progress rather than measures of long-term impact. In response to interest holder feedback, this
report includes expanded information on program
reach, participant demographics, service delivery,
performance measures, and emerging outcomes
across RFCY-funded programs.
Introduction
The Richmond Kids First Initiative
was created to be a sustainable
funding stream for improving
outcomes for children, youth,
and families in Richmond and
Unincorporated North Richmond.
T hrough the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY, also referred to as “the Fund”), the City of Richmond invests in organizations
and agencies that provide programs and services designed to support young people’s health, wellbeing, safety, learning, and long-term success. The Richmond Department of Children and 1 Photo courtesy of The Practice Space. ©2026
The following are the six goals of the Fund:
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, young
adults, their parents/guardians, families, and the
communities in which they live by preventing
problems and enhancing the strengths of
children, youth, young adults, and their families
3 To ensure young people are provided with
gender-responsive, trauma-informed, populationspecific, and culturally competent services 4 To strengthen collaboration among 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 adulthood
6 To fill gaps in services and to leverage
other resources whenever feasible
The Fund Theory of Change
The Fund theory of change (Figure 1) visualizes
how the Fund is expected to positively impact
Richmond residents in the long term. By funding Richmond-serving organizations, the Fund aims to reduce service gaps, deliver more highquality and equitable services, and promote stronger collaboration between service providers across the city. Over time, these short-term outcomes are expected to lead to increased
availability of services and safety supports for
Richmond children and youth. Through these
positive short- and intermediate-term outcomes,
the Fund aims to ensure that Richmond children,
youth, and young adults are healthy, educated,
and successful in school and live in stable, safe,
and supportive communities.
Figure 1. The Fund Theory of Change
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.
Richmond
Fund for
Children
and Youth
2 The RFCY Evaluation
The RFCY evaluation is designed to assess how RFCY funding contributes to improving services, opportunities, and outcomes for children, youth, and families in Richmond and North Richmond. The evaluation examines implementation, program reach, participant experiences, emerging outcomes, and broader systems-level impacts associated with RFCY investments.
Because the Fund supports a diverse portfolio of programs with varying goals, target populations, and service models, the evaluation focuses on understanding the collective impact of the Fund as a community investment strategy rather than evaluating any single program in isolation. The evaluation is designed to support accountability, continuous improvement, and decision-making by providing information about who is being served, what services are being delivered, how participants experience those services, and the extent to which funded programs are positively impacting Richmond’s children and youth.
The evaluation plan was developed over a 10-month period in collaboration with the RDCY, the Fund Oversight Board, RFCY grantees, and Richmond youth. The evaluation design is grounded in the Fund’s theory of change and includes measuring outcomes related to youth wellbeing, access to supportive services and opportunities, program quality, community safety, and systems collaboration.
Many RFCY-funded programs are designed to influence long-term developmental, educational, behavioral health, and community outcomes that may take multiple years to fully materialize. In addition, funded programs vary substantially in their intended goals and populations served. Accordingly, this evaluation measures crosscutting outcomes that are relevant across programs as well as outcomes that are aligned with each program’s intended goals.
Data Sources
The evaluation draws on multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data, including participant surveys, parent/guardian surveys, grantee surveys, quarterly program reports, and grantee focus groups. Data collected and analyzed within this evaluation are consistent with the broader field of youth development research and evaluation (Henderson et al., 2005; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016; Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2010) and the design of similarly sized youth programming evaluations (Kramer et al., 2026; San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, 2026). Together, these data provide a comprehensive picture of how RFCY-funded programs are being implemented, who they are reaching, how participants are experiencing services, and the extent to which programs are contributing to the Fund’s broader goals. 1,692
Participant
Surveys
128
Quarterly
Reports
35 Organization
Surveys
3 Grantee
Focus
Groups
1,344 Youth surveys
348 Parent/guardian surveys
3 Data Limitations
This report has two main data limitations tied
to the startup period of the Fund and its grantees. The first relates to participant survey data.
WestEd collected three times as many surveys in
2025 than in 2024. All funded programs that had
served survey-eligible participants in 2025 collected participant or parent survey data for this report. However, survey data do not reflect all eligible participants served. The discrepancy between the total number of participant surveys and the
total number of participants served is attributable to several factors. Participant surveys were not administered to participants under the age
of 11, and parent/guardian surveys were administered exclusively for programs with direct parent/ guardian contact. Programs without eligible participants, as well as programs offering certain types of large-scale, onetime programming (such
as tabling or hosting a large onetime event), were
exempt from survey administration requirements.
In addition, in 2025, survey administration was limited to programs with active contracts that had commenced programming. Programs that experienced contract delays missed key data collection windows for participant survey administration,
resulting in fewer completed surveys for those programs. Separately, as programs built capacity to meet grant requirements, some did not meet the
stated expectation of surveying all eligible participants—an expected challenge during the 1st year of grant administration. With programs now in full
implementation in 2026, survey data collection for
2026 began in February, and targeted support is
being provided to improve survey response rates.
In addition, the RDCY plans to conduct site visits
to observe program quality directly, ensuring that
all funded programs are adequately monitored.
The second limitation relates to the ability to
calculate an unduplicated count of participants
across the fund. Grantees track participants using
client-level identifiers and report unduplicated participant counts within their own programs, which is an improvement from previous years when grantees reported unduplicated counts for the quarter rather than the entire year. Because participant
identifiers are not shared across organizations,
it is not possible to determine whether the same
participant was served by multiple RFCY-funded
programs. As a result, this report presents unduplicated participant counts at the grantee level and uses the term “encounters” to describe total
participation across the RFCY-funded programs.
Encounter totals may include duplicate individuals who participated in more than one program.
Analytic Approach
Prior to carrying out analyses, WestEd conducted
a structured review of grantee-reported data to
assess completeness, consistency, and plausibility. This process included reviewing quarterly submissions, identifying potential inconsistencies
or missing information, and conducting follow-up
with the RDCY and grantees to clarify or reconcile
reported values where necessary. Only data that
met minimum standards for consistency and plausibility were included in the analyses presented in this report.
Evaluation data were analyzed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.
Quantitative analyses consisted primarily of
descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, and comparisons across RFCY strategic priority areas and across participant groups where
sample sizes were sufficient to support stable
interpretation. Due to variation in response rates
and small cell sizes for some groups, subgroup
findings should be interpreted descriptively and
with appropriate caution.
Qualitative data from grantee focus groups,
open-ended survey responses, and administrative reporting narratives were coded using an axial coding framework and analyzed to identify
common implementation themes, successes,
and challenges across funded programs.
Photo courtesy of The Practice Space. ©2026 4
2025 RFCYFunded Program
Implementation
For the 2025–2027 funding
cycle, 37 grants were awarded
to 36 distinct organizations.
Appendix A has a complete list
of grantees and their funding
amounts. Accompanying profiles
provide more information
about each grantee’s
programming and feature
photos from each program.
F unded programs represent a diverse portfolio of investments spanning behavioral health, violence prevention, education and workforce development, enrichment and recreation, basic needs, and case management. Across the
Fund portfolio, funding enabled organizations
to increase service availability, maintain free or
low-cost programming, and respond to evolving
community needs.
organizations
funded
36 grants
37 program
sites
107
dispersed
$6,734,835
participant
encounters
15,774
hours of
services
29,534
5 6
The Funded Programs
Programs were funded under one of four priority areas that were identified through the 2024 Community Needs Assessment and Strategic
Investment Plan (Figure 2): mental and behavioral
health needs; physical health and access; learning needs; and safety, community, and belonging needs.1 Although each program was funded under
a single priority area, many grantees offered programming related to additional priority areas.
Programs were also encouraged to provide connective services such as case management, transportation, and food access.
Figure 2. Program Funding by Priority Area
1 See Appendix A for full list of programs by priority area.
Profiles of each funded program can be found in a supplemental file. $2,243,475
11 Grants
$2,011,200
11 Grants $1,420,814
8 Grants $1,059,346
7 Grants
Learning Needs Mental & Behavioral
Health Needs
Safety, Community &
Belonging Needs
Physical Health
& Access
Photo courtesy of Bay Area Community Resources. ©2026
“[This fund] is helping … support
thriving children that grow up
to be thriving, productive adults
with no expectations about, oh,
college, whatever it is they decide
to do. I want them to be able to do
that with their basic needs met, to
be healthy, to be safe, to be able
to take care of children of their
own one day. … Every little dollar,
every program, it all matters to
help support our youth into being
healthy adults.”
—Grantee focus group member
Organization size varied: Some funded organizations were small, with annual budgets less than $500,000; others were large organizations that serve the entire Bay Area and have annual budgets greater than $50 million (see Figure 3). RFCY funds made up less than 1 percent of the large organizations’ budgets and higher proportions of the small and medium-sized organizations’ budgets. The Fund covered three programs’ annual operating budgets at the time of application. See Appendix A for a complete list of funded programs and their annual award size.
“The stability is really critical for small community-based nonprofits just to be able to invest in programming and solidify partnerships, which are really critical to our existence.”
—Grantee focus group member
Figure 3. Grant Award Size Relative to Organization and Program Budgets Annual budget Number of grantees
Percentage of the program supported by the
Fund (average)
Percentage of overall organization budget
supported by the Fund
Less than $500,000 5 76% 70%
$500,000 to $5 million 20 52% 27%
$5 million to $50 million 8 47% 8%
More than $50 million 2 48% 0%
Photo courtesy of the Richmond Public Library. ©2026 7
8 Mental and Behavioral
Health Needs
2025 Funding Amount: $2,011,200
Hours of Service: 5,707
Participant Encounters: 5,047
Key Services and Activities z Individual, group, and family therapy/ counseling
z Parent education and behavioral health
training
z Connective supported services for youth
affected by violence
z Social and emotional education z Social and emotional learning (SEL) coaching for educators
“Children are flourishing and
learning new skills to deal with
emotions, traumas and ways
to handle ways to express
themselves. Staff express
excitement when seeing growth in
youth and providing a brave space
for them to be open and share.”
—Greater Richmond Interfaith Program report
Program Highlight
Desarrollo Familiar was supported by
the Fund to deliver the Trauma-Informed
Care in Schools Program, providing com-
prehensive, culturally responsive mental
health services for students at Richmond
High School and Lovonya DeJean Middle
School. The program offered individual
and family counseling, group therapy
(including Grupo de Mujeres for young
Latina students), restorative justice cir-
cles, and case management. The Fund
supported on-site clinical services 5 days
per week at Richmond High School and
2 days per week at Lovonya DeJean
Middle School and supported key per-
sonnel and clinical supervision. The
program reached students and caregiv-
ers, expanded access for uninsured and
underinsured youth, and provided ser-
vices for Spanish-speaking families.
2 2 Program highlights are developed by WestEd with infor- mation from grantee quarterly and annual reports and
grantee focus groups. Beginning in 2026, grantees are
required to report quantitative outcome data.
Photo courtesy of Mindful Life Project. ©2026
9 Physical Health and Access
2025 Funding Amount: $1,420,814
Hours of Service: 11,821
Participant Encounters: 6,067
Key Services and Activities
z Cooking and nutrition classes
z Food distribution
z Physical activity at parks and gardens
z Football and cheer programs
z Outdoor education (food systems,
environmental justice)
Program Highlight
18 Reasons was supported by the Fund
to deliver Food as Medicine for Kids nutrition and cooking education for families, offered in both English and Spanish. The
program provided weekly Zoom-based,
hands-on cooking and SNAP-Ed nutrition
education paired with doorstep delivery
of nutritious groceries. In addition, the
program built community capacity by
recruiting and training peer health educators. The Fund supported staffing and food distribution, helping families develop
practical skills and access resources to
support healthy eating at home.
Photo courtesy of Growing Together Bay Area. ©2026
“There are very few activities or third spaces that participants can access that are free. Our spaces and program allow Richmond residents to connect and have fun with each other while learning life-long nutrition, cooking, and budgeting skills, and also enjoying a nourishing meal.” —18 Reasons report
10 Learning Needs
2025 Funding Amount: $2,243,475
Hours of Service: 5,975
Participant Encounters: 4,295
Key Services and Activities
z Summer camps
z Job training
z Shadowing experiences
z Part-time employment and/or internships
z Mentorship
z College and career support
z After-school tutoring
z Delivery of science, English language arts,
and health education lessons
z Curriculum resources for educators
Program Highlight
The City of Richmond Recreation Division
was supported by the Fund to implement
Camp Achieve, a summer learning program delivering academic enrichment, literacy support, and SEL for elementary
and middle school students across four
Richmond community centers. In 2025,
the program recruited and trained certified West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) teachers and site coordinators. They also delivered daily literacy education, STEM education, arts education, physical activity, and field trips or swim days, serving more than 300
students. RFCY funds supported core
implementation costs—staffing (recreation staff and teacher stipends), supplies and instructional materials, and field trip
transportation and admissions.
Photo courtesy of Project Avary. ©2026
“Many students shared that traditional school environments did not meet their learning needs, but the combination of construction training, individualized support, and clear career pathways helped them regain confidence and develop a stronger sense of purpose.”
—City of Richmond, Employment and Training Department report 11 Safety, Community, and
Belonging Needs
2025 Funding Amount: $1,059,346
Hours of Service: 6,032
Participant Encounters: 365
Key Services and Activities z Mentorship z Visual and performing arts programs z Law-related education z Youth public safety academy z Volunteer and public service activities “[Our program] enables young
adults facing significant
barriers to achieve stability
and independence. ... Holistic,
relationship-based support can
interrupt cycles of instability
and create pathways toward
long-term self-sufficiency.”
—Fresh Lifelines for Youth report
Program Highlight
The Fund supported Nurturing Indepen-
dence through Artistic Development
(NIAD) in expanding its Young Artist
Leaders (YAL) initiative. NIAD had not
previously focused on youth. The Fund
grant provided dedicated resources to
strengthen outreach and leadership sup-
ports for young adult artists (ages 19–24)
with intellectual and developmental dis-
abilities. As a new program, in 2025, the
YAL initiative focused on targeted out-
reach at regional transition/resource
fairs and community events and youthled tours and workshops. Using RFCY funds, the YAL initiative also created a
YAL Advisory Group that provided a ded-
icated forum for younger artists to build
community, share feedback, and help
shape programming. Over the course of
the year, NIAD doubled the number of
Richmond-based Young Artist Lead-
ers (from two to four) and strengthened
peer connection and leadership among
emerging artists across the broader
intergenerational studio community.
Photo courtesy of Touch of New Life. ©2026
Program Sites
RFCY-funded programs operated at 107 sites.
See Appendix B for a full list of sites by funded organization, and see Appendix C for a full list of program sites by city council district. The majority of program sites were located in Richmond and North Richmond (60 sites), where programming was delivered in
z schools (26 sites, 22 of which were WCCUSD schools);
z publicly funded locations such as community centers, parks, libraries, and recreation facilities (18 sites);
z organization-run facilities (12 sites); and
z other locations used for outreach or training (4 sites).
The geographic distribution of program sites across Richmond and North Richmond helped ensure that programs were accessible to Richmond residents who otherwise had limited access.
Some activities took place at sites outside Richmond and North Richmond (47 sites). None of the funded programs had sites exclusively outside of Richmond.3 Of the 47 sites outside of Richmond, 38 (80%) only had short-term programming such as field trips or a weeklong summer camp, and 9 (20%) had long-term programming (multiple sessions occurring over a month or more). Sites outside of Richmond were
z organization-run facilities (5 sites),
z publicly funded locations such as community centers and libraries (5 sites), z outdoor and cultural excursion sites used for field trips and camps (25 sites), 3 Article XV does not prohibit programming from taking place outside of Richmond. Article XV states that “entities eligible to receive funding include those (1) located outside but in close proximity to Richmond to the extent that those entities serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults who reside in Richmond or unincorporated North Richmond.” Photo courtesy of YES Nature to Neighborhoods. ©2026
z WCCUSD schools (8 sites), and
z colleges (4 sites).
These activities provided opportunities for children, youth, and families who reside in Richmond and North Richmond to engage in educational, recreational, and enrichment experiences beyond their immediate communities.
12 Schools That Partnered With RFCY-Funded Programs in 2025 N Nystrom Elementary School
P Peres Elementary School
R Richmond College Preparatory
Richmond High School
S Salesian College Preparatory
Sheldon Elementary School
V Verde Elementary School
Vista Virtual Academy
Voices College-Bound Language
Academy at West Contra Costa County
W Washington Elementary School
In Surrounding Area
B Betty Reid Soskin Middle School
C El Cerrito High School
Contra Costa College
E Edward M. Downer Elementary School
I Invictus Academy of Richmond
M Montalvin Manor Elementary School
O Olinda Elementary School
P Pinole Valley High School
S Santa Clara University
U University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
W Walter T. Helms Middle School
In Richmond and North Richmond
A Aspire Richmond Technology Academy
C Cesar E. Chavez Elementary
Coronado Elementary School
D De Anza High School
F Ford Elementary School
G Golden Gate Community School
Grant Elementary School
H Highland Elementary School
J John F. Kennedy High School
L Leadership Public Schools: Richmond
Lincoln Elementary School
Lovonya DeJean Middle School
M Making Waves Academy
Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School
Michelle Obama Elementary School
Mira Vista Elementary School
The Fund
dispersed
$3,176,386
to
19 grantees
who offered
7,221 hours
of programming
at
30 WCCUSD
schools.
13 RFCY Service Provision,
Youth Encounters,
and Participant
Demographics
Grantees provided 29,534
hours of programming to
Richmond children, youth,
and families in 2025.
The majority of this time (78% of total program
hours) reflected programming offered in group
settings and included a variety of activities such
as workshops, classroom activities, field trips,
and group mentoring (see Figure 4). Individual programming (17% of total program hours) included activities such as individualized case management,
mentorship, homework help, and therapeutic
services. Programming categorized as “other”
included internship hours and community events
such as information nights and giveaways (5%).
4 Grantees track participants using client-level identifiers and report unduplicated participant counts within their own programs. Because participant identifiers are not shared across organizations, it is not possible to determine whether the same participant was served by multiple RFCY-funded programs. As a result, this report presents unduplicated participant counts at the grantee level and uses the term “encounters” to describe total participation across the Fund-supported programs. Encounter totals may include duplicate individuals who participated in more than one program. The number of participants served by program can be found in Appendix A.
Figure 4. Breakdown of Service
Provision Activities
Most service activities (85% of total program
hours; see Figure 5) were offered on a recurring
basis, meaning that the same group of individuals
participated in multiple sessions, such as multiweek after-school programs, summer camps, or workshop series.
Figure 5. Cadence of Service Provision Activities
RFCY programs served children, their guardians,
and educators. In total, RFCY-funded programming
provided 28,546 hours of services directly to children and youth participants. Some of the service hours included programming for parent/guardian
(2,716 hours) and educator (6,831 hours) participants. Because some activities served multiple participant groups simultaneously, these hours are
not mutually exclusive and should not be summed.
In 2025, RFCY grantees had 15,774 encounters
with children, youth, and adults.4
Program structure varied—ranging from intensive
programming for a small number of participants
to programs that served entire schools. Many
grantees reported that the Fund enabled them
to offer consistent programming and to expand
programming during a year of limited funding from
other sources.
The majority of participants in RFCY-funded programs resided in the following zip codes: 94803 (35%), 94801 (26%), and 94804 (26%). Program
participants were about evenly split between male
and female (Figure 6).
Figure 6. RFCY-Funded Program
Participant Gender
Individual
Other
Group
17%
5%
78%
Breakdown of Service Provision Activities
Onetime
Recurring
15%
85%
Service Provision Activities by Participant Type
Female
51%
Male
49%
Unknown or
Nonbinary <1%
RFCY Participant Gender Identity
14 15
The majority of participants (69%) were between 6 and 12 years old (Figure 7). Programs also served children ages 13–17 (12%) and youth ages 18–24 (3%); these programs tended to focus on internship and employment training. Programs also served guardians (8%); these programs were often case management and parenting workshops.
Figure 7. RFCY-Funded Program Participant Ages
Grantees served a racially and ethnically diverse population of children and youth. RFCY participant demographics mirror that of Richmond’s overall population (Figure 8). To best serve the large percentage of Spanish-speaking participants, many programs were offered in Spanish. Several programs also offered services and/or materials in more than two languages.
Figure 8. RFCY-Funded Program Participant Race/Ethnicity Birth–5
8%
6–12
69%
13–17
12%
18–24
3%
Guardians
8%
RFCY Participant Ages
Hispanic/Latino 62%
Black 15%
Other 11%
White 4%
Mixed Race 4%
Asian 4%
RFCY Participant Race/Ethnicity
Photo courtesy of 18 Reasons. ©2026
“There are not a lot of funders that are
dedicated to funding in what’s Contra
Costa. ... A lot of people are like, ‘It’s messy.
We’re going to stay out of the area.’ The city
of Richmond is one of very few sustained
funding sources. ... Knowing that they
have consistent year-over-year funding
is game-changing.”
—Grantee focus group member
16 Participant Experiences
and Program Quality
A central goal of the Fund is to ensure that funded
programs provide safe, supportive, engaging, and
culturally responsive experiences for children and
youth. This section examines multiple indicators of
program quality during the 1st year of the 2025–
2027 grant cycle. Findings are based on participant
and parent/guardian surveys administered across
RFCY-funded programs and provide insight into
how participants experienced services during the
2025 reporting period.
Why Program
Quality Matters
Research consistently demonstrates that posi-
tive developmental outcomes are more likely to
occur based on the quality of programming, rather
than just attendance or participation. Positive
outcomes are more likely in programs in which par-
ticipants feel safe, supported by caring adults, and
have a sense of belonging, regardless of the spe-
cific goals of the program (Agans et al., 2015; Boat
et al., 2024; Ratner et al., 2023; Roth & BrooksGunn, 2016; Serido et al., 2011).
The evaluation measured program quality using
four widely used domains in the Fund participant
survey, drawing on established practices in the
field of youth development (The Forum for Youth
Investment, 2023; Leonard & Moore, 2017; Moore
et al., 2010; Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2010).
These measures were validated with Richmond
youth through the evaluation’s youth advisory
group and the Fund Oversight Board, whose mem-
bers informed the selection of items they felt were
the most critical indicators of program quality. Full
survey item text and per-item scores are available
in a supplemental file. The four domains of pro-
gram quality are as follows: z Program Satisfaction: Within the field of youth development, program satisfaction is a
key predictor of program effectiveness and is
widely used as a measure of program quality
(Sabatelli et al., 2005; Simmons et al., 2014;
Watts et al., 2008).
Photo courtesy of Pogo Park. ©2026
z Program Environment: Participants who
feel physically and emotionally safe are
more likely to engage in activities, develop
trusting relationships, and benefit from
program supports (Gootman & Eccles, 2002;
Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2010)—all of
which are key characteristics and outcomes
of high-quality programs. Maintaining safe
and supportive environments is particularly
important because of the high impact
of poverty, bullying, and fears for safety
described in Richmond’s 2024 Community
Needs Assessment.
z Caring Adults: Supportive relationships with
adults are among the strongest predictors
of positive youth development and key
indicators of program quality. Research
consistently demonstrates that caring and
positive adult relationships can strengthen
resilience, increase engagement, and
promote social, emotional, and academic
growth (Greene et al., 2013; Ratner et al.,
2023; Serido et al., 2011). Caring adults are
particularly important because of the high
impact of social isolation described in the
2024 Community Needs Assessment.
z Sense of Belonging: A sense of belonging is
defined as the extent to which participants
feel accepted, valued, and connected to a
program community. Feelings of belonging
are associated with stronger engagement,
increased participation, and positive
developmental outcomes (Barber & Olsen,
1997; Naftzger, 2025). Sense of belonging
is particularly important in Richmond
because of the high impact of bullying
and discrimination described in the 2024
Community Needs Assessment.
Photo courtesy of Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance. ©2026 17 Quality of RFCY-Funded
Programs
Evaluation findings show that the Fund has invested in
programs that the majority of participants enjoy and
that provide participants with a feeling of safety. While many programs received high ratings across most program quality indicators, some received lower ratings, especially related to caring adult relationships and
sense of belonging. This highlights the need for sustained investment, ongoing technical assistance, and continuous improvement efforts to further strengthen
all aspects of program quality over time.
Program Satisfaction
The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed
that they liked the program (80%) and would recommend it to a friend (78%) (Figure 9). The majority of participants also agreed or strongly agreed that they
were interested in what they did in the program (76%)
and that they tried new things in the program (79%). A
lower percentage of youth agreed or strongly agreed
that the things they did in the program made a difference (59%).
Parent and caregiver feedback reflected similarly high
levels of satisfaction (Figure 10). The vast majority of parent survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that they liked the program (90%) and would recommend it to another parent or caregiver (89%), that their child was interested in what they did at the program
(87%), and that they developed new skills because of
the program (86%).
Figure 9. Youth Satisfaction With RFCY-Funded Programs
I would recommend this program
to a friend.
I do things that make a
difference at this program.
14% 52%
15% 47%
9% 28% 29%
6% 15% 33% 43%
14% 37% 42%
I like this program.
I am interested in what we do at
this program.
In this program, I try new things.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 30%
28%
31%
Note. This figure reflects 1,323 participant surveys from 35 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. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants.
“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
18 Figure 10. Parent Satisfaction With RFCY-Funded Programs Note. This figure reflects 347 parent surveys from 11 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. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants.
I would recommend this program to
another parent.
6% 70%
7% 72%
9% 19% 68%
11% 24% 62%
I like this program.
My child is interested in what they
do at this program.
My child developed new skills because
of this program.
Parents’ Satisfaction With the Funded Programs
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 19%
17%
“My child has been very happy
at camp this summer. I feel
very grateful that this program
exists for our community and
our children.”
—Camp Achieve parent
19 Photo courtesy of City of
Richmond Department of
Recreation- Camp Achieve. ©2026
Program Environment
Most surveyed participants reported feeling physically and emotionally safe while participating in programming (Figures 11–12). They agreed or strongly agreed that they felt physically safe when at the program (78%), the place was a comfortable one to hang out (80%), adults at the program understood their family’s culture (72%), and adults at the program encouraged respect for others who are different from them (85%). Parent and caregiver feedback reflected similarly positive experiences. The majority of parent survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their child felt physically safe when at the program (88%) and that program staff understood their family’s culture (84%).
Figure 11. Participants’ Satisfaction With Program Environment Note. This figure reflects 1,301 participant surveys from 35 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. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 46%
47%
52%
39%
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.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 16%
13%
11%
22%
32%
33%
33%
33%
“This is a lot like a second home
to me. I feel so safe here in who I
can be and physically too.”
—RYSE participant, age 17
20 Figure 12. Parent Satisfaction With Program Environment Note. This figure reflects 341 parent surveys from 11 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. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 62%
62%
Staff at this program understand my
family’s culture.
My child is physically safe when they are
at this program.
13%
9%
22%
26%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree “Everything is excellently well taken
care of, from the staff who work at
the complex to the maintenance
provided to the space where my
children ... have fun safely.”
—Pogo Park parent
Photo courtesy of Bay Area Community Resources. ©2026 21 Caring Adults
There was greater variation in whether participants indicated their program fostered strong, supportive networks of adults through programming that centered on youth wellbeing (Figure 13). The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that there was an adult at the program who cared about them (82%), there was an adult in the program who believed they would become a success (82%), there was an adult in the program who always wanted them to do their best (85%), and they could talk to program adults about things that bother them (72%).5 Parents and caregivers shared similar sentiments (Figure 14). The majority agreed or strongly agreed that there was an adult at the program who cared about their child (85%). Caring adult relationships are a key indicator of program quality, and these findings point to a clear area for future technical assistance.
Figure 13. Participants’ Experience With Program Staff
Note. This figure reflects 979 participant surveys from 35 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. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 5 The reported percentages reflect the total number of survey respondents. There were two programs with particularly low ratings for caring adults, which led to a low average score. Excluding these two programs results in the percentages increasing between 1 and 3 percentage points.
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.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 14% 30% 52%
14% 32% 50%
10% 32% 53%
5% 6% 18% 33% 39%
“I also loved the way all the adults
working there made everyone feel
included and not left out.”
—Bay Area Community
Resources participant, age 15
22 Figure 14. Parent Experience With Program Staff
Note. This figure reflects 270 parent surveys from 11 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. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants.
There is an adult in this program who
cares about my child.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 11% 24% 61%
Sense of Belonging
More than two thirds of participants said it was somewhat, mostly, or completely true that they had a strong sense of belonging to a community at the program (70%), could usually be themselves in the program (73%), and felt like they mattered in the program (71%) (Figure 15).6 Sense of belonging is another important indicator of program quality, and these findings highlight a clear area for future technical assistance.
Figure 15. Participants’ Sense of Belonging in Their Programs Note. This figure reflects 939 participant surveys from 35 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. Bars without data labels had 3 percent or fewer participants. 6 The reported percentages reflect the total number of survey respondents. There were two programs with particularly low ratings for sense of belonging, which led to a lower average score. Excluding these two programs results in the percentages increasing between 7 and 9 percentage points.
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.
Not At All True A Little True Somewhat True Mostly True Completely True 8% 15% 29% 44%
7% 17% 25% 46%
8% 19% 29% 41%
“I feel like I have a second family
at Project Avary. I always feel
welcomed, cared about and whole.”
—Project Avary participant, age 11
“My child connected well with staff
and looks forward to coming.”
—Contra Costa Family
Justice Center parent
23 24
Grantee Performance
Measures
Each of the program quality domains above is
measured through several survey items, offering
a fuller picture of participants’ experiences. To
complement this, the RDCY also tracks one representative item per domain as a performance measure, providing a consistent, streamlined indicator for monitoring grantee performance over time. Grantee-level results are shared with the
RDCY annually to identify strengths, opportunities
for growth, and areas where additional support or
technical assistance may be needed.
The following performance measures were
selected by the Fund Oversight Board in partnership with WestEd, the RDCY, and the Fund evaluation youth advisory group. For each performance measure, a benchmark was selected by the Fund Oversight Board to represent the minimum acceptable level of performance. The RDCY is currently developing its technical assistance
and capacity-building model that will use these
benchmarks to identify grantees in need of intensive, targeted, or universal support. z Program Participation (benchmark:
85%): Number of participants served as
a percentage of the program’s projected
number of participants
z Program Satisfaction (benchmark: 50%):
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement “I would
recommend this program to a friend.”
z Program Environment (benchmark: 70%):
Percentage of surveyed youth who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement “I feel
physically safe when I am at this program.”
z Caring Adults (benchmark: 70%): Percentage
of surveyed youth who agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement “There is an adult
at this program who cares about me.”
z Sense of Belonging (benchmark: 50%):
Percentage of surveyed youth who indicated
that the statement “I have a strong sense of
belonging to a community at this program”
was somewhat, mostly, or completely true
Photo courtesy of City of Richmond Department of Recreation - Camp Achieve. ©2026 25 The following findings are based on 1,323 youth
surveys collected from 35 programs, and on 341
parent surveys collected from 11 programs.
Findings: Grantee
Performance Benchmarks
Because this report reflects the 1st year of imple-
mentation for a new funding cycle, benchmark
results should be interpreted as an early indica-
tor of program quality rather than a definitive
assessment of program effectiveness. Overall,
86 percent of applicable RFCY-funded programs
met all established benchmarks for survey-derived
performance measures, and 76 percent met the
benchmark for program participation. The RDCY is
establishing a Growth and Improvement Planning
(GIP) process in partnership with these programs
to identify the root cause of poor performance
and to identify a path to improvement.
As depicted in Figure 16, findings suggest that
RFCY-funded programs generally provided positive
experiences for participants, while the findings
also point to opportunities to further strengthen
engagement, belonging, and supportive relation-
ships for some youth. A small but meaningful
number of youth participants indicated neg-
ative experiences in their programs. Although
these responses represent a minority, they pro-
vide important insight into areas where program
improvements may be necessary to ensure all
youth feel safe, supported, and engaged.
Figure 16. Percentage of RFCY Grantees Meeting
Performance Benchmarks, 2025
Note. Only programs with at least 10 survey responses
were included in benchmark calculations.
As programs continue to mature, strengthen
implementation, and receive ongoing support
from the RDCY, the 2026 and 2027 evaluation data
will be able to assess whether participant reports
of program quality increase over time.
Program Satisfaction
Program Environment
Caring Adults
Sense of Belonging
97%
83%
Program Participation 76%
92%
96%
Photo courtesy of Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance. ©2026 Participant
Outcomes and
Early Indicators
of Impact
RFCY-funded programs
are designed to support a
wide range of outcomes
for children and youth.
Because funded programs vary considerably in their goals, service models, and activities, each program was assigned one or
more participant survey module with questions
that measured program-aligned outcomes.
This section is organized by outcome module
(Table 1) to illustrate the impact of programs
based on their specific design and focus.
Findings should be interpreted as early indicators of impact during the 1st year of the 2025–2027 grant cycle.
Table 1. Survey Outcome Modules
Outcome
module
What it
measures Which programs administered this module Number of grantees Number of
responses
Academic
Success
Academic motivation and
school-related
skills
Programs whose primary goals included
academic support, educational enrichment,
tutoring, homework assistance, school
engagement, and/or college preparation
9 561
Physical, Mental,
and Emotional
Health
Wellbeing,
coping, and overall health
Programs focused on behavioral health,
mental health services, wellness, violence
prevention, social–emotional development,
and related supports
15 861
Career Readiness,
Employment, and
Postsecondary
Success
Workforce skills
and career development
Programs focused on workforce development, employment readiness, internships, and career exploration
5 85
College
Preparedness
Postsecondary
awareness and
readiness
Programs focused on college preparation
and postsecondary access 4 112
Building
Connections
Peer relationships
and social connectedness
Programs focused on mentoring, enrichment, youth development, after-school programming, recreation, and community-building activities designed to strengthen peer relationships and social
connection
10 450
Leadership
Development
Leadership skills,
voice, and civic
engagement
Programs focused on youth leadership,
advocacy, civic engagement, environmental justice, community participation, and youth voice
7 511
Life Skills
Goal-setting,
self-management, and future
orientation
Programs focused on positive youth development, mentoring, leadership, career exposure, and skill-building
4 287
Connective
Supportive
Services
Access to services, supports,
and resources
All programs, regardless of program type;
survey participants were asked a question
about what types of resources, if any, they
had been connected with by the programs
10 450
26 Academic Success
Academic engagement and confidence are
important predictors of educational success
(Archambault et al., 2009; Dogan, 2015). Effective
academic youth programming involves helping
young people build the skills, habits, and motivation needed to succeed in school and pursue future educational opportunities (Child Trends,
2009; Naftzger, 2025; Neild et al., 2019; Sandoval
& Bowers, 2025).
Key Findings
Eighty-five percent of surveyed youth indicated
that “What I learn at this program helps me be
more successful in school.” Similarly, 80 percent
reported that “Because of this program, I am more
motivated to learn in school,” and 87 percent
reported that the program makes learning fun.
Parent and caregiver perceptions were similarly
positive: 94 percent of surveyed parents reported
that their child would do better in school because
of the program, and 97 percent reported that the
program makes learning fun.
These findings suggest that programs may
strengthen both academic engagement and attitudes toward school. “My child has really enjoyed
her time in the Nevin Summer
Camp. The staff are supportive
and engaging, and the activities
offered have helped build both
academic skills and social
confidence.”
—Camp Achieve parent
Program Highlight
Growing Together facilitated biweekly in-school garden and nutrition classes and after-school activities and mentored youth apprenticeships across four schools, serving thousands of students and training youth educators. They delivered hands-on experiential learning throughout semesters and planned ongoing programming. Responses to organization-administered surveys showed strong alignment with school priorities—engagement, science achievement, attendance, health and wellness—and high teacher and parent approval. Ninety-five percent of parents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “My child is more engaged in school because of the garden and nutrition program.” In addition, teachers provided positive feedback about the program, and 97.5 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “This program helped engage students in learning science concepts.” One teacher said, “This program helps me promote student wellbeing, integrate hands-on learning into the curriculum, and foster a positive school culture. It also supports my role in teaching healthy habits and providing opportunities for crosscurricular connections, enhancing both academic and social development.” As a result of the positive reception, several schools committed to fee-for-service contracts and district matching funds for after-school components, supporting program sustainability beyond the Fund grant. 27 Physical, Mental, and
Emotional Health
Positive physical, emotional, and mental health
supports young people’s overall wellbeing and
ability to thrive at home, in school, and in their
communities (Banati et al., 2025; Newby et al.,
2022). Youth-serving programs can play an important role in helping participants learn and develop coping skills, address mental health challenges,
and improve nutrition and physical activity
(Barfield et al., 2021; Bengtsson et al., 2025; Child
Trends, 2009; Sandoval & Bowers, 2025; Tuaf &
Orkibi, 2023). Programs offering physical, mental,
and emotional supports are increasingly important given mounting concerns nationwide regarding the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on youth mental health and wellbeing (McGorry
et al., 2025; Verlenden, 2024).
Key Findings
Participants generally reported positive outcomes
related to health and wellbeing. Eighty-three percent of surveyed youth who participated in an RFCY-funded program reported that the program taught them how to be healthy, 86 percent reported learning how to deal with problems in
positive ways, and 79 percent reported that the
program helped them cope with stress. Parent
and caregiver responses reflected similarly positive perceptions, with 92 percent reporting that the program taught their family how to make
healthy decisions.
“Having joined the Richmond
Steelers has been extremely
positive for my sons and our
family—their confidence and
happiness are blooming!”
—Richmond Steelers parent
Program Highlight
The Fund supported the Contra Costa
Family Justice Alliance to deliver the
Richmond Children’s Mental Health
Program, expanding access to no-cost,
trauma-informed clinical and wraparound
supports for youth impacted by interpersonal violence. Services are provided at the Contra Costa Family Justice Center
in Richmond. In addition to providing
individual and family counseling, the program also delivered the “Dating Matters:
Building Safe and Healthy Relationships”
interactive workshop for youth ages 10–16
(in collaboration with the East Bay Center
for the Performing Arts). This workshop
helps students recognize healthy versus
unhealthy relationship behaviors, identify safe adults, and reduce stigma around counseling. On the participant survey, one
parent reflected, “So far it’s been great to
have found support for my son that is free
and did not have to wait too long to get
the help he needed.”
28 Career Readiness,
Employment, and
Postsecondary Success
Career readiness and postsecondary preparation
programs help youth develop workforce skills,
explore career pathways, and build knowledge
about future educational and employment opportunities. These supports can strengthen long-term economic mobility and help young people successfully transition into adulthood (Child Trends, 2009; Larson & Bolton, 2019; Sandoval & Bowers,
2025; Xing et al., 2019; Yousef, 2024).
Key Findings
Participants reported strong outcomes related to
career readiness and postsecondary preparation.
Ninety percent of surveyed youth who participated in RFCY-funded programming reported that the program helped them learn how to work
independently with focus, 88 percent reported
learning what is expected in a work setting, and 91
percent reported learning about jobs they could
have in the future. Eighty-five percent reported
understanding how to get the kind of job they
want, and 91 percent reported understanding the
steps needed to get into college.
While not required to do so, RFCY-funded programs also connected some participants to tangible work-based learning opportunities.
Among respondents, 36 percent reported receiving volunteer opportunities or unpaid internships, 20 percent reported receiving paid jobs, and 17
percent reported receiving paid internships.
Together, these findings suggest that RFCY-funded
workforce and postsecondary programs are helping youth build practical employment-related skills while also increasing awareness of educational
and career pathways.
“This was such a rewarding
program. I learned so much and
enjoyed every part of it. I’m ready
for college.”
—The Black Neighborhood—Youth
Empowerment Program participant, age 17
Program Highlight
The Fund supported Richmond Promise to
deliver the First Year Experience Program
in partnership with Contra Costa College.
The program provides coaching, case
management, and community-building
supports such as “Study Jam” drop-in sessions with tutors to help Richmond youth who are 1st-year college students to persist and succeed in college. The Fund also supported high-engagement events such
as Summer Bridge, Fall Welcome, workshops, and an end-of-year celebration and field trip that aimed to strengthen
belonging and retention. Despite challenges related to financial aid and summer counseling appointment availability, the
program met its ambitious goals. This
included 94 percent of participants who
completed pre–Summer Bridge registration and 90 percent of participants who updated their education plans. They
also made measurable progress toward
1st-year English and math requirements,
reflecting the program’s success in
improving college retention rates.
29 Building Connections
Positive peer relationships and social connectedness are foundational components of healthy youth development. Programs that help youth
build friendships, strengthen interpersonal skills,
and develop a sense of belonging can support
emotional wellbeing, resilience, and positive
engagement in school and community settings
(Boat et al., 2024; Naftzger, 2025).
Key Findings
Participants in RFCY-funded programs generally reported strong outcomes related to peer relationships and social connectedness. Eightyeight percent of surveyed youth reported that the program helped them make new friends, and 90
percent reported that the program helped them
learn how to get along with others. Parent and
caregiver responses reflected similarly positive
perceptions, with 100 percent of surveyed parents reporting that their child made new friends because of the program.
The high percentage of participants reporting new
friendships and improved ability to get along with
others suggests that many programs are creating
environments where youth feel connected, supported, and engaged with their peers. “My son … loves the program [and
says] that he feels so good seeing
other kids with brown skin, he feels
welcome, celebrated and happy
here. … My son got to experience
what it feels like to be centered
and invested in. He now wants to
invest into youth—his dreams and
thoughts have been expanded
and given space for seeds to be
planted. This program is more than
a program—it is planting seeds that
are growing and impacting lives.”
—Richmond Freedom School parent
Program Highlight
Big Brothers Big Sisters, Bay Area (BBBSBA)
was supported by the Fund to expand
and strengthen one-on-one communitybased mentoring for Richmond youth, pairing young people with trained volunteer mentors and providing ongoing case management to support match success.
In 2025, the Fund supported 11 Richmond
pairs through direct mentoring, match
supports, and case management. RFCY
funding also supported outreach and
partnership development that generated
new referrals and expanded community
engagement through group events and
caregiver workshops. This helped participants build consistent, supportive relationships that can promote youth
wellbeing and positive academic and
social outcomes.
30 Leadership Development
Leadership and advocacy skills help young people
build confidence, strengthen their voice, understand community issues, and see themselves as capable of contributing to positive change.
Programs that support youth leadership can help
participants develop civic awareness, problemsolving skills, and a stronger sense of agency (Buzinde et al., 2019; Child Trends, 2009; Clement
et al., 2014; Kelsey & Fuhrman, 2020; Sandoval &
Bowers, 2025).
Key Findings
Participants in RFCY-funded programs reported
strong outcomes related to leadership and civic
engagement. Since coming to the program, 86
percent of youth said they were more aware of
what is going on in their community, 92 percent
said they better understood solutions to problems in their community, and 86 percent said they saw themselves as more of a leader. In addition, 82 percent reported that they had become better at saying no to things they know are wrong.
These strong findings related to understanding
community problems and solutions suggest that
these programs are supporting youth not only as
participants but as emerging leaders with the
capacity to reflect on community conditions and
to take action.
“YES helped strengthen my
empathy by putting me in
situations where I had to work
with people from different
backgrounds and perspectives.
Whether it was during a teambuilding hike or a group discussion, I learned to listen deeply, respect
others’ experiences, and lead in a
way that brings people together
rather than apart. The program
also taught me the value of
dependability. Being part of a
close team made us rely on each
other, showing me that leadership
isn’t about doing everything alone
but about showing up, being
prepared, and supporting others
consistently.”
—YES program participant, age unknown
Program Highlight
The Fund supported The Latina Center to
deliver the Young Latinas, Future Leaders
STEAM program. This program engages
youth in leadership development, mentorship, and hands-on robotics learning.
The program supported training and stipends for youth mentors aged 18–22.
Training included engaging youth in how
to facilitate robotics instruction and in
leadership-building exercises. Youth mentors were integral to the overall program implementation. Collectively, youth mentors accumulated more than 100 hours of paid mentorship. Using a specific curriculum, the program helped a largely beginner cohort (90% had no prior robotics experience) build foundational skills in robot design, construction, and programming while also strengthening teamwork, communication, persistence, and problemsolving through group challenges and competitions. Participants exhibited their
work at a culminating Robotics Showcase
and graduation.
31 32
Life Skills
Life skills such as goal-setting and future orien-
tation help drive long-term success in education,
employment, and personal wellbeing (Aronowitz,
2005; Scarborough et al., 2010; Sun & Shek, 2012).
Key Findings
Participants in RFCY-funded programs generally
reported positive outcomes related to future orien-
tation and personal skill development. Eighty-one
percent of surveyed youth reported learning how
to set goals and meet them, 78 percent reported
that the program helped them think about the
future, and 83 percent reported learning new skills
that would help them achieve their goals.
“Touch of New Life has helped
me grow as an individual. I’ve
learned discipline, job skills, and
communication skills.”
—Touch of New Life participant, age 17
Program Highlight
The Fund supported Touch of New Life to
deliver the Youth Public Safety Academy,
a career-exploration and youth develop-
ment program that prepares Richmond
teens through life skills training, pub-
lic-safety exposure, and other hands-on
training. In 2025, the program con-
ducted broad community recruitment
and pre-academy workshops, including
Department of Motor Vehicle identification
support and first aid and cardiopulmo-
nary resuscitation training. They then
implemented a 3-week summer academy
featuring classroom lectures on life skills
topics, physical training, and scenariobased learning with engagement from law enforcement, fire personnel, dispatch
staff, and district attorneys. Youth who
completed the program earned certifi-
cates of completion, training certificates,
and scholarships. One youth shared, “I like
the program because it’s helping me learn
about a lot of jobs I never thought I could
get. I like the different trainings because
I will be able to use it in any job.”
Photo courtesy of Richmond Outdoors Coalition. ©2026
Connective Supportive
Services
The 2024 RFCY Community Needs Assessment
identified three overarching connective service
needs: transportation, navigation support, and a
two-generation approach to services. Many children, youth, and families face barriers related to reliable transportation that prevent their ability to
attend programs. In addition, navigation support
is needed to help families access social services,
housing, education, and healthcare. Finally, a
two-generation approach provides support for
the entire family, resulting in a holistic approach
to children’s wellbeing. Programs that connect
participants and their families with supportive
services and resources can help reduce barriers to
program participation and strengthen overall wellbeing (Aspen Institute, 2026; Kennedy et al., 2007).
Key Findings
RFCY grantees coupled direct service with supportive navigation—case management, resource referrals, bilingual outreach, scholarship offerings, and assistance with employment or school systems—to lower access barriers and strengthen family capacity. Family supports included multiweek parent education, caregiver support groups, and intergenerational events. In addition, onsite family engagement activities helped families build trust, reduce isolation, and equip caregivers with parenting skills.
RFCY-funded programs connected youth and families with a broad range of supportive services and resources (Figure 17). Sixty-five percent of surveyed youth and 70 percent of surveyed parents and caregivers reported that they were connected to at least one resource or support through their program. The most commonly reported resources included education-related services (34%), food assistance (31%), and counseling services (24%).
Figure 17. Types of Resources Received by Surveyed Participants Note. Participants could select all that apply, so percentages do not add up to 100 percent. Data are based on responses from 321 parents and 1,182 youth survey respondents.
Education-Related
Services
Childcare
Medical or
Dental Care
Housing
Assistance
Transportation
Tickets or Passes
Work-Appropriate
Clothing or
Work-Related
Equipment
Counseling or
Other Mental
Health Services
Food Assistance
34% 31% 24% 17%
17% 10% 7% 6%
Top Resources Received by Youth
33 34
Types of multigenerational services
and programming: z workshops for parents on topics such as nutrition, cooking, and parenting
z case management (entire family) z family counseling services These findings suggest that RFCY-funded pro-
grams serve as important connectors between
participants and broader systems of support.
Beyond providing direct programming, many orga-
nizations are helping youth and families navigate
services, reduce barriers to participation, and
access resources that can support overall family
stability and wellbeing.
“Many caregivers—grandparents,
relatives, or guardians—also
experience isolation and stigma.
Through our family engagement
efforts, they have found a supportive
community where they can share
resources, exchange encouragement,
and feel understood. Caregivers
report feeling less alone and more
equipped to support their children’s
emotional and leadership growth.”
—Project Avary report
Program Highlight
The Fund supported the Child Abuse
Prevention Council to strengthen child
safety and family wellbeing through
Speak Up Be Safe (SUBS) school-based
prevention education and the Nurturing
Parenting Program (NPP) at Verde and
Coronado Elementary Schools. SUBS pro-
vides age-appropriate child safety lessons
to elementary and middle school class-
rooms, providing students with practical
tools and repeated exposure to rein-
force safety skills. Lessons are adapted
to support bilingual learners by offer-
ing materials in English and Spanish. The
NPP provides information to caregivers
in a trusting and judgment-free space,
making a positive impact on caregivers’
mental health. For example, one partici-
pant reported, “This program is so fulfilling
it lifts my spirit and allows me to feel good
about myself.”
Photo courtesy of East Bay Center for the Performing Arts. ©2026 35 Overall Patterns in
Participant Outcomes
Across outcome modules, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes related to supportive relationships, peer connection, leadership, future orientation, and wellbeing. Findings were especially strong for social connectedness,
leadership, career readiness, and postsecondary
preparation. Many participants reported that
programs helped them make friends, build interpersonal skills, understand community issues, develop leadership skills, and feel more confident
about future educational and career opportunities. Participants also reported positive outcomes related to healthy decision-making, coping with
problems, and stress management, suggesting that RFCY-funded programs are supporting important protective factors linked to positive
youth development.
Although findings were generally positive across
outcome areas, some variability emerged among
specific measures. Academic-related items related
to motivation and school success, while still positive overall, were somewhat less strongly endorsed than measures focused on belonging, leadership,
peer relationships, and career readiness. This pattern may reflect differences in program intensity, variation in the degree to which programs directly
targeted academic outcomes, or the reality that
changes in school engagement and academic
confidence may develop more gradually over time
than outcomes related to connection, enjoyment,
or the development of life skills.
Similarly, although participants frequently
reported positive relationships and opportunities for connection, measures related to a broader sense of belonging and community connection showed somewhat greater variation across respondents. These findings may suggest
opportunities for some programs to continue
strengthening strategies that foster deeper
participant engagement, inclusion, and communitybuilding. Taken together, the findings provide encouraging early evidence that RFCY-funded
programs are supporting wellbeing, connection,
leadership, skill development, and future opportunities for Richmond youth and families. Variation across some outcome areas may point to areas
that may benefit from additional support or technical assistance.
Photo courtesy of East Bay Center for the Performing Arts. ©2026 36 Organizational,
Community, and
Systems-Level
Findings
In addition to the findings on
participant-level outcomes,
emerging findings suggest
that the Fund contributed
to broader organizational,
community, and early systemslevel changes during the 1st year of the 2025–2027 grant cycle. Findings in this section are based primar -
ily on grantee focus groups and quarterly
reports and reflect how the Fund reduced ser-
vice gaps; strengthened organizational capacity
and sustainability; and strengthened community
engagement, partnerships, and collective impact.
These findings align with the Fund’s broader goals
of strengthening community-based systems of
support; increasing equitable access to services;
and promoting the wellbeing of Richmond chil-
dren, youth, and families.
Photo courtesy of Bay Area Girls Club. ©2026
Photo courtesy of The Hidden Genius Project. ©2026
Reducing Service Gaps
Evidence suggests that the Fund increased the
availability and accessibility of affordable programs and services in Richmond and North Richmond. The Fund has reduced service gaps by
enabling partners to expand staff time, broaden
their geographic reach, and diversify the type
of services they can offer. Programs have built
staffing capacity, increased scholarship funding,
and broadened participation so that more youth
and families have had opportunities to participate. Many grantees have also used RFCY funding to reduce barriers to participation by offering
free or low-cost programming, transportation
assistance, participant stipends, and culturally
responsive supports.
Geographically Accessible
Programs
In 2025, RFCY-funded programs operated across
more than 100 sites, including schools, community centers, parks, libraries, recreation facilities, and neighborhood-based locations throughout
Richmond and North Richmond. Many of the
programs operated in neighborhoods with lower
levels of child opportunity, including areas with
higher concentrations of economic hardship and
7 The 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. 8 See the 2024 Richmond Department of Children and Youth Community Needs Assessment Report for more information about Richmond’s high-need areas. reduced access to resources and services. Figure
18 shows the location of RFCY-funded program
sites in relation to child opportunity as defined by
the Childhood Opportunity Index (COI).7 The majority of program sites are centrally located and in areas with a higher proportion of families whose
income is less than 200 percent of the federal
poverty level. Several organizations also described
intentionally locating services within neighborhoods and schools where youth and families already spend time in order to reduce participation
barriers and strengthen long-term engagement.8
Figure 18. Map of RFCY-Funded Program Sites
Among 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. These findings suggest that RFCY
funding is helping channel services and supports
toward communities where youth and families
may face greater structural barriers to services
and supports for children and youth.
0 100
Child Opportunity Index Score
City Council District Boundaries
Child Opportunity Index 3.0
2020 Census Tracts
2021 Data
37 38
“The unmet need for safe, free
youth programming is profound in
a community where 6,620 children
lack access to quality summer
programs and many are confined
indoors with nowhere safe to go—
the demand for enriching, free
activities is huge.”
—Pogo Park report
Consistent Programming to
Address Service Gaps
Grantees emphasized that multiyear, stable
funding is critical for building an ecosystem of
services and ensuring continuity of supports as
youth age. They reflected that community-based
care and resource-sharing are essential for youth
wellbeing and for creating opportunities that
reinforce each other to deepen impact beyond
individual programs.
Programming Designed to
Serve Diverse Participants
Grantees were also committed to offering programs
for participants from varied cultural and linguistic
backgrounds and for neurodivergent participants.
Many grantees offered resources and information
in English and Spanish for parents and participants.
One grantee specifically focused on neurodiver-
gent populations, and many grantees integrated
practices to ensure that neurodivergent partici-
pants were well-served. For example, Big Brothers
Big Sisters had a Match Support specialist offering
resources on neurodivergence for mentors to imple-
ment best practices for engaging their mentees.
“The community reinforced the
need for culturally responsive, lowbarrier care. Families responded strongly to services that were
flexible, multilingual, and delivered
with cultural humility—especially
when childcare, transportation, and
informal engagement opportunities
were built in. ... Access isn’t just
about availability; it’s about design
that respects lived reality.”
—Greater Richmond Interfaith
Program Report
Together, these findings suggest that RFCY
funding is helping to strengthen the avail-
ability, continuity, and accessibility of
youth-serving supports across Richmond
and North Richmond.
Photo courtesy of The Watershed Project. ©2026
39 Strengthening
Organizational Capacity
and Sustainability
Across focus groups, participants from differ-
ent organizations consistently described RFCY
funding as an important source of organizational
stability within an increasingly uncertain funding
environment. Many organizations emphasized that
multiyear funding allowed them to engage in longer
term planning, retain staff, strengthen infrastruc-
ture, and invest in program quality in ways that are
often difficult under short-term grants.
In addition, several grantees described RFCY
funding as uniquely flexible and relationship cen-
tered compared to other public funding streams.
Organizations noted that the structure of the Fund
allowed them to respond to evolving participant
and community needs while maintaining consis-
tency in staffing and service delivery.
“Multiyear funding from RFCY
is especially vital to preventing
service interruption, which can
undermine trust, disrupt student
progress, and weaken long-term
outcomes. In [our organization’s]
experience, schools that lose
access to programming—whether
due to funding gaps or instability—
rarely have the opportunity to reengage in future years, even when need and desire remains high.”
—Grantee focus group member
Grantees frequently connected funding and staff-
ing stability to program quality and participant
relationships. Grantees also repeatedly emphasized
that stable funding allowed them to maintain con-
sistent relationships with youth and families over
time, building trust with the Richmond community.
Several organizations described continuity itself as
a critical lever of change, particularly for youth who
have experienced instability, trauma, violence, or
inconsistent access to support systems.
Photo courtesy of The Practice Space. ©2026
“RFCY is the largest and most
stable source of funding for the
community. … It is the biggest
grant that is available to most of
our organizations and knowing
that it’s going to be there longterm really allows us to change our thinking about how we’re planning,
programming, thinking about the
future and what we can do for our
community.”
—Grantee focus group member
Although 2025 was the 1st year of the 3-year RFCY
grant cycle, many grantees are already planning
for sustainability. The grantee reports from many
of the organizations mention prioritizing sustainability by diversifying revenue (grants, individual and corporate donations, earned income/fee-forservice, matching funds, and reserves), strengthening partnership practices (memoranda of understanding, school and district commitments,
anchor funders), and creatively braiding new funding with existing funding streams. Several reports also emphasize building institutional capacity—prospect development, documentation, cross-training, and billing mechanisms (e.g., MediCal/CalAIM)—to ensure program sustainability. “[For] this grant, we really invested
in scaling up our core programming
so that we’re serving more youth
through one-to-one mentorship
through our community-based
model. And because of that, we
can direct other funding streams
towards other new innovative things
that we want to do that we think
can also compound and support.”
—Grantee focus group member
For smaller community-based organizations in
particular, RFCY funding was often described as
being critical to developing partnerships, building
capacity, and establishing operational systems to
support their programs.
Five grants (totaling $356,000) were awarded to
small and emerging programs, each with operating budgets less than $250,000:
z Bay Area Girls Club
z Black Neighborhood—Youth Empowerment
Program
z Richmond Steelers Youth Football and Cheer
z Things That Creep
z Touch of New Life
Many programs also reported that an essential
part of their sustainability strategy is grounded in
their partnership models. In grantee reports, partnership models allowed grantees to reduce costs, embed program capacity into community institutions, diversify revenue and referrals, and expand ownership so that programs can persist despite
funding or staffing changes.
Training and Capacity
Building
Throughout the year, grantees invested in staff
training to build organizational capacity through
lunch-and-learns and by bringing in outside contractors to facilitate workshops for program staff.
In quarterly reports, nine grantees described
professional development offerings in 2025,
with many of those focused on evidence-based
approaches to serving specific populations.
40 41
“By having consistent funding,
organizations can plan for
sustainability over time and focus on
continuously improving programs,
rather than using funds to address
short-term issues: [Long-term
funding from RFCY is] invaluable
because then you don’t have to
worry about the money piece
and you can look at making your
programs better year over year.”
—Grantee focus group member
Grantee Professional
Development Topics
z gender-responsive, trauma-informed,
population-specific, culturally
competent programming
z support for students who are
English Learners
z support for LGBTQ+ youth
z improvement of outcomes for systeminvolved and violence-impacted youth z creative techniques for managing anger
for system-involved youth
z trauma-focused therapy for families
z African American trauma and resilience
z transformative justice
z healing-centered engagement
z equitable youth and adult partnerships
z motivational interviewing
z public speaking
z bias reduction
z disability justice
Photo courtesy of Pogo Park. ©2026
Strengthening
Community Engagement,
Partnerships, and
Collective Impact
Another major theme across focus groups was
the importance of collaboration and relationshipbuilding with the community and across Richmond’s youth-serving ecosystem. Many
organizations described the Fund as helping to
create stronger connections between schools,
community-based organizations, families, and
youth-serving systems.
Youth and Family
Engagement
Strong youth, family, and community engagement
supported program participation, youth outcomes, and community-building. In the grantee reports, organizations describe sustained, intentional efforts to engage families and strengthen community ties. Programs prioritized parent
meetings, volunteer roles, and family-focused
events—such as weekly assemblies, tournaments,
and retreats—which had high turnout and active
participation. These activities helped cultivate
belonging, reduce feelings of isolation, and build
families’ confidence in supporting their children.
“Through our family engagement
efforts, [caregivers] have found
a supportive community where
they can share resources,
exchange encouragement, and
feel understood. Caregivers
report feeling less alone and more
equipped to support their children’s
emotional and leadership growth.”
—Project Avary report
In addition, several grantees described having
consistent, formal engagement with youth and
families to inform the programs’ continuous
improvements. Five organizations reported engaging with youth through an established board or council, and two organizations reported engaging
with the Richmond community through an advisory board.
Strengthened Partnerships
Through the Fund, community-based organizations
deepened and diversified their partnerships to sustain and expand youth programs. Organizations reported prioritizing partners who shared
youth-centered values and demonstrated
operational stability. They employed a range of collaboration strategies, including clarifying roles and responsibilities and increasing and formalizing communication channels. They collectively addressed operational and programming barriers and fostered
relational trust to improve coordination. They also
broadened referral pathways and community networks to increase reach and enrollment.
There were 10 grantees that formally applied
for a collaboration grant. However, many of the
other funded organizations partnered with at
least one other community-based organization
in Richmond to bring programming to another
site or to collaborate on the development and
implementation of a program. These findings
suggest that the Fund is contributing to a more
connected and collaborative youth-serving
ecosystem in Richmond and North Richmond.
“[The Fund provides] more
opportunity for synergy and
resource sharing with each other
and really building organizational
capacity to work with each other
and collaborate with each other in
this way. So, I think this is not only
just for this time period of the grant,
but goes beyond in … building this
practice of resource sharing with
each other.”
—Grantee focus group member
42 Ten grants (totaling $2,718,475) were awarded
to collaborative programs:
z City of Richmond Employment and Training and John Muir Charter School: Richmond YouthBUILD
z City of Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety and RYSE: CARRY z East Bay Center for the Performing Arts and Contra Costa Family Justice Center: Young Artist Diploma Program
z Greater Richmond Interfaith Program and Early Childhood Mental Health Program: Early Childhood Mental Health Program at GRIP z The Latina Center and Global Foundation of Arts, Science, and Technology: The Young Latinas, Future Leaders STEAM Program z Richmond High School and East Bay Center for the Performing Arts (Fiscal Sponsor: West Contra Costa Public Education Fund):
Richmond High School Music Department
z Richmond Outdoors Coalition and YES Nature to Neighborhoods (Fiscal Sponsor: YES! Nature to Neighborhoods)
z Richmond Promise and Contra Costa College: First Year Experience Program
z Richmond Public Library and Bay Area Tutoring Association:
Homework Help and Tutoring Program
z West Contra Costa Unified School District and West Contra Costa Public Education Fund: Positive Behavioral Intervention System Summarizing Early Organization-,
Community-, and Systems-Level Impacts
Importantly, many of the strongest themes emerging from the focus groups reflected systems-level conditions rather than discrete program outputs.
Grantees frequently emphasized that stable relationships, trusted community spaces, culturally responsive programming, and continuity of care are foundational to long-term positive outcomes for youth and families. Grantees described a clear orientation toward strategic growth and diversification of delivery models in the coming years. At the same time, findings also suggest that many RFCY-funded organizations continue to operate within a broader environment of funding instability, workforce strain, and increasing community need. While RFCY funding appears to have strengthened organizational capacity and service continuity, grantees consistently described the need for additional investment, coordination, and infrastructure support to sustain and expand these efforts over time.
While grantees highlighted implementation facilitators and positive impact, they also surfaced a set of practical obstacles that they navigated throughout the year. The following section outlines the most common implementation challenges from 2025 that inform the recommendations for the next year of grant implementation and that are summarized at the end of this report.
Photo courtesy of Nurturing Independence through Artistic Development (NIAD) Art Center. ©2026 43
Implementation
Challenges
Several recurring challenges emerged across
grantees’ 2025 reports:
z School and District Partnerships: Delays in
establishing school and district partnerships
were commonly reported. Grantees cited late
site confirmations, slow badge and contract
approvals, and difficulty identifying decisionmakers within schools. Partnerships often depended heavily on school staff capacity,
which varied widely. As a result, some
grantees experienced delays or reductions
in programming due to staffing changes or
limited coordination capacity within schools.
z Partnership Coordination Challenges: Some
grantees also faced broader partnershiprelated barriers associated with the importance of having each site’s point of
contact collaborate on program planning
and implementation. Staff turnover and
transitions among key personnel at host
sites led to communication disruptions and
logistical delays. In addition, when partners
required changes to program logistics or
schedules, it complicated programming
planning for grantees. Grantees reported
that these issues with site coordination and
site capacity affected program momentum
and attendance. Grantees reported
dedicating more time to program planning
and alignment with partners and pivoting
to different partners or program formats to
support more collaborative partnerships.
z Administrative and Compliance Barriers:
Delays in contracting and payments—
along with complex compliance and
insurance requirements—slowed program
implementation and constrained available
resources in some cases.
z Recruitment, Retention, and Attendance: A
few grantees reported difficulty maintaining consistent enrollment due to last-minute cancellations, competing extracurricular commitments, transportation challenges, and limited parent availability. To address these
challenges, grantees engaged in proactive outreach and prioritized waitlist management. z Staffing Constraints: A minority of grantees
experienced staffing-related challenges,
including vacancies, onboarding delays, staff
transitions, and burnout, which reduced
program capacity and continuity.
z Space and Infrastructure Limitations: Limited
access to facilities, delayed park construction,
and reliance on temporary venues reduced
cohort sizes and restricted opportunities for
hands-on activities in some cases.
z Community Stressors and Resource
Limitations: External factors affecting
families also impacted participation in some
programs. Work schedules, food and housing
insecurity, and immigration-related concerns
were frequently cited.
z Safety Concerns Related to Immigration
Enforcement: Some participants were
hesitant to leave home, access services,
or engage in programming due to fears of
detention. In certain cases, participants
withdrew from programs altogether.
Grantees reported that immigration-related
stress had significant emotional, mental,
and physical impacts on youth and families.
In response to safety concerns, grantees
implemented mitigation strategies such
as developing internal protocols, creating
safety procedures specific to Immigration
and Customs Enforcement activities,
posting reassuring signage, and providing
individualized support to help participants
feel safe accessing programming.
z Funding Landscape: Some grantees noted
instability in funding sources, including
SNAP-Ed, AmeriCorps, federal and
state grants, and district funding. Some
organizations reliant on AmeriCorps faced
staffing uncertainty or sudden loss of
personnel. One grantee used short-term
loans to maintain staff during a government
shutdown, while others experienced staffing
gaps that affected recruitment efforts. In
anticipation of future funding reductions, at
least one organization proactively reduced its
budget to protect core programming.
z WCCUSD Strike: Grantees partnering with
WCCUSD schools had fewer programming
days due to a WCCUSD strike. Some grantees
paused programming, others transitioned
to virtual delivery, and some expanded
offerings to provide safe, supervised
spaces for youth during the disruption.
44 45
Fund
Administration
An important component
of the Fund implementation
is how the funding is
administered by the RDCY. T he RDCY is responsible for administering the grants, which includes establishing the grant
requirements and administrative processes. The
RDCY is also responsible for grant monitoring,
year-round data quality review, invoice review-
ing, payment processing, and implementation of
the GIP process.
Administrative Capacity
The 1st year of the 2025–2027 funding cycle coin-
cided with a period of significant organizational
growth and transition within the RDCY. During
2025, the RDCY was simultaneously responsible
for administering and monitoring RFCY grants,
closing out the previous funding cycle, onboard-
ing new staff, implementing new internal systems,
and supporting a range of responsibilities beyond
RFCY implementation. These activities placed sub-
stantial demands on the RDCY’s capacity during
a critical implementation period.
Despite these challenges, grantee feedback sug-
gests that RDCY staff continue to be viewed as
trusted and supportive partners. Most grantees
reported receiving helpful guidance and feedback
from RDCY staff (74%) and indicated that they
felt comfortable reaching out when challenges
arose (86%). These findings reflect the strength
of the RDCY’s relationships with grantees and
the department’s continued commitment to
supporting funded organizations (Figure 19). At
the same time, findings identified opportunities
to strengthen fund administration processes.
Grantees were asked how the RDCY compares
to other funders “on processing grant agree-
ments and invoices,” and 46 percent said worse
or much worse.
Photo courtesy of The Practice Space. ©2026
Figure 19. Responses Regarding RDCY Staff, Expectations, and Support Delays in contracting and payment processing were among the most common challenges identified throughout the grantees’ quarterly reports during the 1st year of implementation. These delays stemmed from a combination of factors on both the grantee and department sides, and in some cases from both simultaneously. As noted earlier, the RDCY’s own internal capacity was still growing during this 1st year, which affected the speed of contract and invoice processing. For some organizations, delayed contracts and reimbursement timelines created uncertainty around staffing, program planning, and service delivery.
At the same time, variation in grantee administrative capacity also contributed to processing delays. At times, resolving invoices required multiple rounds of follow-up between RDCY and grantee staff, a process that could extend over a month of communication per invoice. This represented a substantial and recurring demand on RDCY staff capacity.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 14% 34% 43% 6%
6% 11% 26% 34% 23%
6% 26% 20% 31% 17%
9% 43% 43%
9% 17% 57% 17% RDCY staff provide helpful
guidance and feedback.
Expectations for reporting
and invoicing are clear.
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.
I feel comfortable approaching RDCY
staff when a problem or issue arises.
“Delays in fund disbursements can
create operational challenges for
our organization, as timely funding is important for covering program expenses and planning staffing and services. When funds are delayed, it can introduce some uncertainty and make advance planning more difficult.” —RFCY grantee report
Although these challenges are not uncommon
during periods of organizational transition and
systems implementation, they underscore the
importance of continuing to streamline administrative processes and build internal capacity to support timely grant administration.
46 Data and Reporting
Infrastructure
In 2025, the RDCY implemented a new grant
management system using a Grant Management
Software (GMS) platform. Starting in 2025, RFCY
grantees were required to submit their reports
and other documentation to the Fund through the
GMS. The investment in a GMS provides a streamlined platform for the RDCY to monitor grants, but there is a continued need to build the department’s capacity to use the system and review the documentation required for grantees to receive
their payments. There is also a need for continued or improved technical assistance for grantees because the system is new for many.
Grantees noted that the transition to the GMS has
been helpful, but not without challenges. Related
to reporting and invoicing, slightly more than
half of grantees (57%) agreed or strongly agreed
that expectations for reporting and invoicing are
clear. About two thirds of grantees (66%) agreed
or strongly agreed that the GMS is easy to navigate, with one grantee sharing that “the use of [the GMS] is a big improvement. However, the amount
of reporting for any given year is challenging.” As
in previous years, some grantees suggested that
reporting and invoicing are time-consuming and
more extensive than for other similar grants.
Evaluation and
Continuous Learning
Evaluation is an important component of the
Fund’s accountability and continuous improvement efforts. In addition to documenting participant outcomes and program implementation, the evaluation is intended to provide information that can support program improvement, inform decision-making, and strengthen understanding of how RFCY investments contribute to outcomes for children, youth, and families.
Overall, grantees had a positive experience with
WestEd, with 100 percent of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that the WestEd team was responsive to questions.
Results indicate that some grantees may need
more support for the evaluation. The majority of grantees (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that expectations of the evaluation were clear.
While the majority of grantees indicated that
they were well-supported to complete evaluation activities (97%), some grantees suggested areas of improvement. Survey results indicated
a need for additional technical assistance related
to required data collection and reporting, with 76
percent saying that it is easy to collect service
provision data, 71 percent saying that it is easy to
collect the demographic data for the evaluation,
and 85 percent saying that the reporting templates that WestEd provided were helpful.
The survey findings also highlight an interest in evaluation-specific technical assistance and capacity building. Nearly half of grantees
expressed interest in additional support related
to program evaluation (46%), survey development (40%), and qualitative data collection (37%), while slightly more than half expressed interest
in data analysis for program improvement (51%).
These findings suggest that many organizations
view evaluation not only as a reporting requirement but also as a tool for learning, continuous improvement, and demonstrating impact beyond
the Fund evaluation.
In response to grantee feedback, WestEd will offer a
robust series of quarterly evaluation-specific technical assistance supports for 2026.
Photo courtesy of City of Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety. ©2026 47 Recommendations
for Strengthening
RFCY
Implementation
and Impact
The findings presented
throughout this report suggest
several opportunities to
strengthen implementation
and maximize the long-term
impact of RFCY investments.
Improve Access and
Engagement
While programs are reaching youth and families
across Richmond and North Richmond, findings
suggest that barriers to participation remain for
some populations.
Recommendations:
z Explore transportation supports and other
strategies that can reduce barriers to
participation.
z Engage with community partners through
the Community Needs Assessment to
identify communities with continued need.
z Continue to support flexible program models
that meet the needs of diverse participants
and families.
z Continue investing in culturally responsive,
multilingual, and community-based
approaches to service delivery.
Strengthen Program
Quality Through
Targeted Technical
Assistance
Findings from participant surveys provide opportunities to identify areas where grantees may benefit from additional support. Targeted technical assistance and capacity building (TA/CB) can help organizations strengthen program quality,
improve participant experiences, and build capacity in areas that support positive outcomes for youth and families.
Recommendations:
z Clearly define and communicate a Growth
and Improvement Plan (GIP) process,
including when it applies.
z Implement GIPs as a collaborative process
with grantees that do not meet established
performance benchmarks to identify root causes
and build a shared action plan for growth.
z Pair GIPs with a tiered TA/CB model matched
to grantee need: intensive support for
grantees facing significant or persistent
challenges, targeted support for grantees
with specific areas for growth, and universal
support available to all grantees.
z Develop and implement a TA/CB model in
alignment with best practices, calibrated
to what is feasible within the department’s
current capacity constraints.
Photo courtesy of Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Bay Area. ©2026 48 Strengthen
Organizational Capacity
and Sustainability
Findings suggest that RFCY funding plays an
important role in supporting organizational
stability, staffing continuity, and long-term
planning. At the same time, many organizations
continue to operate within an increasingly challenging funding environment characterized by workforce shortages, rising costs, and growing
demand for services.
Recommendations:
z Support organizational sustainability
planning, including strategies for
diversifying funding and strengthening
administrative infrastructure.
z Provide more intensive and individualized
support for small and emerging
organizations that may face unique
operational and implementation challenges.
z Continue investing in evaluation capacity
building, data literacy, and continuous
improvement efforts.
Strengthen School
and Community
Partnerships
Strong partnerships between schools and
community-based organizations can support
participant recruitment, program implementation, and continuity of services. Findings suggest opportunities to strengthen coordination structures that can support effective collaboration and reduce disruptions caused by staff turnover
and competing organizational priorities.
Recommendations:
z Develop coordination processes and
expectations for partnerships between
grantees and schools to support scheduling,
recruitment, and service delivery.
z Explore opportunities to establish datasharing agreements with partners like WCCUSD to support accurate data reporting
while protecting student privacy.
Strengthen Data
Infrastructure and
Build Capacity for Grant
Monitoring
The 1st year of implementation highlighted opportunities to build grantee fluency with a newly implemented data infrastructure and with data
collection and reporting requirements. As grantees become more comfortable with the GMS, data collection, and data reporting, the RDCY can
improve accountability while reducing administrative burden on grantees.
Recommendations:
z Continue refining the grants management
system and reporting processes to improve
usability and consistency.
z Develop and communicate clearer reporting
guidance and standardized definitions for
key metrics.
z Implement routine data quality monitoring
and reconciliation processes throughout the
reporting cycle.
z Continue providing technical assistance
related to data collection, reporting, and
evaluation requirements to improve the
quality of evaluation data and to support
grantees’ use of data for continuous
improvement.
49 Conclusion
Year 1 of the Fund’s 2025–2027
funding cycle demonstrates
that the Fund is reaching the
communities it was designed to
serve and delivering measurable
value to Richmond’s children,
youth, and families.
I
n 2025, 37 grants to 36 organizations delivered
more than 28,500 hours of direct programming and 15,774 encounters with children, youth, and adults, concentrated in the Richmond neighborhoods with the greatest need. Participants reported strong outcomes across nearly every
domain measured, including academic engagement, wellbeing, leadership, peer relationships, and career and postsecondary readiness. Parents
and caregivers echoed these results, reporting
positive changes in their children’s health, learning,
and social connectedness. Grantees themselves
described RFCY funding as a stabilizing force, one
that allowed them to retain staff, expand reach,
and plan beyond a single budget cycle—addressing
service gaps left by cuts elsewhere in the system.
At the same time, the evaluation identified opportunities to strengthen Fund administration, data infrastructure, organizational capacity, and school–
community partnerships. Addressing these areas
may help improve implementation, strengthen
accountability, and maximize the impact of RFCY
investments over time.
These findings should be read as early indicators of
implementation and impact from the 1st year of a
new 3-year cycle. Continued investment in program
quality, grantee capacity, strong partnerships, and
continuous improvement will be critical in ensuring
that Richmond children, youth, and families have
access to the opportunities and supports they
need to thrive.
Photo courtesy of Fresh Lifelines for Youth. ©2026 50
References
Agans, J. P., Champine, R. B., Johnson, S. K., Erickson, K., & Yalin, C. (2015).
Promoting healthy lifestyles through youth activity participation: Lessons from research. In E. P. Bowers, G. J. Geldhof, S. K. Johnson, L. J.
Hilliard, R. M. Hershberg, J. V. Lerner, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Promoting positive youth development: Lessons from the 4-H Study (pp. 137–153).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17166-1_8
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408–415.
Aronowitz, T. (2005). The role of “envisioning the future” in the development of resilience among at-risk youth. Public Health Nursing, 22(3), 200–208.
Aspen Institute. (2026). The 5 guiding principles of 2Gen. https://ascend. aspeninstitute.org/2gen-approach/guiding-principles/
Banati, P., Vedechkina, M., De Rubeis, V., Kalai, S., Massaquoi, L., Sadana, R., Baltag, V., & Baird, S. (2025). Adolescent experiences and exposures: A systematic review of life course outcomes. EClinicalMedicine, 88.
Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 287–315.
Barfield, P. A., Ridder, K., Hughes, J., & Rice-McNeil, K. (2021). Get outside! Promoting adolescent health through outdoor after-school activity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147223
Bengtsson, D., Svensson, J., Wiman, V., Stenling, A., Lundkvist, E., & Ivarsson, A. (2025). Health-related outcomes of youth sport participation:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 22(1), 89.
Boat, A. A., Hsieh, T. Y., & Wu, C. Y. (2024). Bidirectional pathways between relationships and sense of belonging in a program for youth living in low-income households. Children and Youth Services Review, 163, 107797.
Buzinde, C., Foroughi, B., & Godwyll, J. (2019). Youth leadership programs for community development and social action: A pedagogical approach.
Community Development Journal, 54(4), 677–694.
Child Trends. (2009). Effective and promising summer learning programs and approaches for economically-disadvantaged children and youth.
Clement, R., Deering, M., Mikhael, R., & Villa-Garcia, C. (2014). Youth civic engagement and leadership. Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University. https://youthtoday.org/wp-content/ uploads/sites/13/2017/11/Youth-CEL_FINAL.pdf
Dogan, U. (2015). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 553–561.
The Forum for Youth Investment. (2023). The Youth Program Quality Improvement (YPQI) approach: Implications for policy and practice. https://forumfyi.org/knowledge-center/ypqi_approach/
Gootman, J. A., & Eccles, J. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. National Academies Press.
51 Greene, K. M., Lee, B., Constance, N., & Hynes, K. (2013). Examining youth and program predictors of engagement in out-of-school time programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(10), 1557–1572.
Henderson, K. A., Powell, G. M., & Scanlin, M. M. (2005). Observing outcomes in youth development: An analysis of mixed methods. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 23(4), 58.
Kelsey, K. D., & Fuhrman, N. E. (2020). Leadership and life skills development among 4-H state-level youth leaders. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 8(2), 15–27.
Kennedy, E., Wilson, B., Valladares, S., & Bronte-Tinkew, J. (2007). Improving attendance and retention in out-of-school time programs. Researchto-Results Practitioner Insights. Publication #2007-17. Child Trends.
Kramer, K., McDonnell, S., Fraix, M., Murillo, L., & Motely-Lewis, D. (2026).
Oakland Fund for Children and Youth, FY 2024–2025 final evaluation report. The Bridging Group.
Larson, M., & Bolton, A. (2019). Guideposts for success 2.0: A framework for successful youth transition to adulthood. National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth.
Leonard, K., & Moore, C. E. (2017, Spring). K–12 student success: Out-of-school time initiative: Program quality (Learning Brief). The Oregon Community Foundation.
Mathematica. (2019, April 18). Investing in communities can create meaningful and measurable change: Place-based initiatives help children reach their full potential. https://www.mathematica.org/news/ investing-in-communities-can-create-meaningful-andmeasurable-change McGorry, P., Gunasiri, H., Mei, C., Rice, S., & Gao, C. X. (2025). The youth mental health crisis: Analysis and solutions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1517533.
Moore, D., Grant, S., McLaughlin, C., Walker, K., & Shaffer, B. (2010). Preliminary findings from the Minnesota 4-H Quality Improvement Study.
Naftzger, N. (2025, August 20). The positive changes youth experience when we invest in afterschool and summer learning programs. American Institutes for Research. https://air.org/resource/blog-post/ positive-changes-youth-experience-when-we-invest-afterschool-and-summer-learning Neild, R. C., Wilson, S. J., & McClanahan, W. (2019). Afterschool programs: A review of evidence under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Research for Action.
Newby, H., Hagell, A., Marsh, A. D., & Guthold, R. (2022). Opportunities to advance measurement of adolescent wellbeing: Building on a new conceptual framework. BMJ, 379.
Ratner, K., Zhu, G., Li, Q., Estevez, M., & Burrow, A. L. (2023). Interacting with supportive adults predicts greater same-day psychosocial functioning among adolescents in a self-driven learning program. Journal of Adolescence, 95(4), 729–739.
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2016). Evaluating youth development programs: Progress and promise. Applied Developmental Science, 20(3), 188–202.
Sabatelli, R. M., Anderson, S. A., & LaMotte, V. (2005). Assessing outcomes in child and youth programs: A practical handbook (Rev. ed.). University of Connecticut and State of Connecticut.
Sandoval, A., & Bowers, E. P. (2025). Positive outcomes of out-of-school time activity participation for youth: A pattern-centered approach.
Journal of Youth Development, 20(1), 1–23.
San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families. (2026).
DCYF grantee year end reports. https://apps.dcyf.org/
granteereports2429/
52 Scarborough, M. K., Lewis, C. M., & Kulkarni, S. (2010). Enhancing adolescent brain development through goal-setting activities. Social Work, 55(3), 276–278.
Serido, J., Borden, L. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2011). Moving beyond youth voice.
Youth & Society, 43(1), 44–63.
Simmons, M. B., Parker, A. G., Hetrick, S. E., Telford, N., Bailey, A., & Rickwood, D. (2014). Development of a satisfaction scale for young people attending youth mental health services. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 8(4), 382–386.
Sun, R. C., & Shek, D. T. (2012). Beliefs in the future as a positive youth development construct: A conceptual review. The Scientific World Journal, 2012(1), 527038.
Tuaf, H., & Orkibi, H. (2023). Community-based programs for youth with mental health conditions: A scoping review and practical implications.
Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1241469.
Verlenden, J. V. (2024). Mental health and suicide risk among high school students and protective factors—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR Supplements, 73.
Watts, C. E., Witt, P. A., & King, T. (2008). Predictors of outcomes for after-school program participants. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26(2), 134.
Xing, X., Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2019). College and career preparation activities and their influence on post-high school education and work attainment. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 34(1), 8.
Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 350–357.
Yousef, W. (2024). Shaping career development through college readiness at the high school level. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1190. 53 Appendix A. Funded Programs by Priority Area
Funded program
Annual
award
amount
Grant type
Number
of youth
surveys
Number
of parent
surveys
Total
number of
surveys
2025 total
number
served
2025 total
service
hours
Core need 1: Mental and behavioral health
Bay Area Community Resources—Promoting Youth and Family Resilience $200,000 Single organization 18 2 20 330 269
Bay Area Girls Club—Take Care of You (TCY) $50,000 Small & emerging 9 8 17 84 45
The Black Neighborhood—Youth Empowerment Program $60,000 Small & emerging 18 N/A 18 32 39
Child Abuse Prevention Council—Speak Up Be Safe (SUBS) and Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP) $51,200 Single organization 21 N/A 21 591 118 City of Richmond, Office of Neighborhood Safety and RYSE—CARRY $300,000 Collaborative 73* N/A 73* 33 161 Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance—The Richmond Children’s Mental Health Program $200,000 Single organization 1 4 5 331 203 Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (Familias Unidas)—Trauma-Informed Care in Schools $200,000 Single organization 30 N/A 30 91 815 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program and Early Childhood Mental Health Program (ECMHP)—ECMHP at GRIP $300,000 Collaborative 2 18 20 52 1,005 The Latina Center and the Global Foundation of Arts, Science, and Technology—Young Latinas, Future Leaders $200,000 Collaborative 51 N/A 51 66 499 Mindful Life Project—SEL Services $150,000 Single
organization 154 5 159 3,386 2,503
West Contra Costa Unified School District and West Contra Costa Public Education Fund—Positive Behavioral Intervention System $300,000 Collaborative N/A N/A N/A 51 50 SUBTOTAL $2,011,200 5,047 5,707
Core need 2: Physical health and access
18 Reasons—Cooking Matters and Food as Medicine $200,000 Single organization 9 N/A 9 935 427
Growing Together Bay Area—Garden and Nutrition Education $190,840 Single organization N/A N/A N/A 1,723 2,102
54 Funded program
Annual
award
amount
Grant type
Number
of youth
surveys
Number
of parent
surveys
Total
number of
surveys
2025 total
number
served
2025 total
service
hours
Pogo Park—Enrichment Programs at Elm Playlot $200,000 Single organization 80 66 146 2,052 2,571
Project Avary—Leadership Program for Children of Incarcerated Parents $200,000 Single organization 26 N/A 26 60 949
Richmond Outdoors Coalition and YES Nature to Neighborhoods— Outdoor Programming $300,000 Collaborative 162 N/A 162 909 147 Richmond Steelers—Youth Football and Cheer $80,000 Small & emerging 20 52 72 200 136
Summer Search—Summer Outdoor Program $50,000 Single
organization 11 N/A 11 41 1,873
YES Nature to Neighborhoods—Youth Leadership Pathway Program $199,974 Single organization 122 1 123 147 3,618
SUBTOTAL $1,420,814 6,067 11,821
Core need 3: Learning needs
City of Richmond, Community Services Dept. (Recreation Division)— Camp Achieve $300,000 Single organization 73 149 222 300 912 City of Richmond, Employment and Training Dept.—YouthBUILD $300,000 Collaborative 15 N/A 15 33 990 Fresh Approach—Youth Community Ambassadors $200,000 Single organization 5 N/A 5 64 444
The Hidden Genius Project—The Intensive Immersion Program $200,000 Single organization 25 N/A 25 299 587
The Practice Space—Mentorship and Leadership Program $200,000 Single organization 49 N/A 49 954 546
Richmond Promise and Contra Costa College—Contra Costa College First Year Experience Program $218,475 Collaborative 30 N/A 30 120 127 Richmond Public Library and Bay Area Tutoring Association—Homework Help and Tutoring Program $200,000 Collaborative 7 3 10 85 580 RYSE—Leadership Pathways Program $200,000 Single
organization 73* N/A 73* 213 1,306
Things That Creep—Neighborhood Snakes and Neighborhood Reptiles $100,000 Small & emerging N/A N/A N/A 1,415 210
55 Funded program
Annual
award
amount
Grant type
Number
of youth
surveys
Number
of parent
surveys
Total
number of
surveys
2025 total
number
served
2025 total
service
hours
The Watershed Project—Educational Programs $125,000 Single organization 72 N/A 72 695 77
West Contra Costa Public Education Fund—Richmond Freedom School $200,000 Single organization 35 40 75 117 196
Subtotal $2,243,475 4,295 5,975
Core need 4: Safety, community, and belonging
Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Bay Area—Mentorship Program $60,000 Single organization 3 N/A 3 21 332
East Bay Center for the Performing Arts and Contra Costa Family Justice Center—The Young Artist Diploma Program (YADP) $300,000 Collaborative 73 N/A 73 50 4,100 Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Inc.—Law Education and Mentoring Program $101,790 Single organization 21 N/A 21 95 84
Nurturing Independence through Artistic Development (NIAD Art Center)—Young Artist Leaders Program $58,556 Single organization 1 N/A 1 4 22 Richmond High School and East Bay Center for the Performing Arts— Richmond High School Music Department $300,000 Collaborative 96 N/A 96 101 329 Summer Search—Mentoring Program $173,000 Single
organization 19 N/A 19 12 953
Touch of New Life—Youth Public Safety Academy $66,000 Small & emerging 13 N/A 13 82 213
Subtotal $1,059,346 365 6,032
Total $6,734,835 37 Grants 1,344 348 1,692 15,774 29,534 Note. RYSE administered surveys to both their Leadership Pathways Program participants and CARRY participants and are not distinguished in the data set. For a description of participant surveys and data collection procedures, see FY21–24 RFCY Evaluation Report. *Service hours are rounded up to the nearest whole hour. Subtotals and totals are calculated using unrounded values and therefore may not equal the sum of the displayed line items.
56 Appendix B. List of Program Sites by Organization
Grantee Sites
18 Reasons—Cooking Matters and Food as Medicine Urban Tilth, 515 Silver Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Verde Elementary, 2000 Giaramita St., Richmond, CA 94801 Bay Area Community Resources—Promoting Youth and
Family Resilience
King Elementary, 4022 Florida Ave., Richmond, CA 94804
Lincoln Elementary School, 29 6th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Coronado Elementary, 2100 Maine Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Ford Elementary, 2711 Maricopa Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Girls Club—Take Care of You (TCY) Bay Area Girls Club, 260 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Chabot and Space Center, 10000 Skyline Blvd., Oakland, CA 94619 Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Bay Area—Mentorship Program Richmond Greenway, Richmond Greenway Trail, Richmond, CA 94804 The Black Neighborhood—Youth Empowerment Program
Burg Park, 2910 Clinton Ave., Richmond, CA 94804
Grizzly Peak, 3092–3148 Grizzly Peak Blvd., Berkeley, CA 94705 Kennedy High School, 4300 Cutting Blvd., Richmond, CA 94804 Chabot and Space Center, 10000 Skyline Blvd., Oakland, CA 94619 Richmond City Recreation Complex, 3230 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Child Abuse Prevention Council—Speak Up Be Safe (SUBS) and Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP)
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary School, 960 17th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Lincoln Elementary School, 29 6th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Verde Elementary, 2000 Giaramita St., Richmond, CA 94801 Coronado Elementary, 2100 Maine Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 City of Richmond, Community Services Dept. (Recreation
Division)—Camp Achieve
Booker T. Anderson Community Center, 960 S 47th St., Richmond, CA 94804 Parchester Community Center, 3833 Collins Ave., Richmond, CA 94806 Nevin Community Center, 598 Nevin Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Shields Reid Community Center, 1410 Kelsey St., Richmond, CA 94801 City of Richmond, Employment and Training Dept.—YouthBUILD RichmondBUILD/YouthBUILD Office, 360 S. 27th St., Richmond, CA 94804 City of Richmond, Office of Neighborhood Safety and RYSE— CARRY RYSE Youth Center, 3939 Bissell Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance—The Richmond Children’s Mental Health Program West Contra Costa Family Justice Center Office, 256 24th St., Richmond, CA 94804 Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (Familias Unidas)—Trauma-Informed Care in Schools
Lovonya DeJean Middle School, 3400 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Richmond High School, 1250 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts—The Young Artist Diploma Program (YADP) East Bay Center for the Performing Arts, 339 11th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Fresh Approach—Youth Community Ambassadors Fresh Approach, 5060 Commercial Circle, Concord, CA 94520 57 Grantee Sites
Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Inc.—Law Education and Mentoring Program
Mt. McKinley, 202 Glacier Dr., Martinez, CA 94553
Golden Gate Community School Richmond, 2200 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 FLY Office, 3260 Blume Dr., Richmond, CA 94806
De Anza High School, 5000 Valley View Rd., Richmond, CA 94803 RYSE Youth Center, 3939 Bissell Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program and Early Childhood Mental Health Program (ECMHP)—ECMHP at GRIP GRIP, 165 22nd St., Richmond, CA 94801 Growing Together Bay Area—Garden and Nutrition Education Mira Vista K–8, 6397 Hazel Ave., Richmond, CA 94805
Peres K–8, 719 5th St., Richmond, CA 94801
King Elementary, 4022 Florida Ave., Richmond, CA 94804
Washington Elementary, 565 Wine St., Richmond, CA 94801 The Hidden Genius Project—The Intensive Immersion Program Making Waves Academy, 4123 Lakeside Dr., Richmond, CA 94806 Invictus Academy, 7150 Portola Dr., El Cerrito, CA 94530 Betty Reid Soskin Middle School, 1121 Allview Ave., El Sobrante, CA 94803 Helms Middle School, 2500 Rd. 20, San Pablo, CA 94806
Salesian High School, 2851 Salesian Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Lovonya DeJean Middle School, 3400 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 RYSE Youth Center, 3939 Bissell Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Richmond High School, 1250 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 Nystrom Elementary, 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 The Latina Center and the Global Foundation of Arts, Science, and Technology—Young Latinas, Future Leaders
The Latina Center, 3701 Barrett Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Chabot and Space Center, 10000 Skyline Blvd., Oakland, CA 94619 Mindful Life Project—SEL Services
Richmond College Preparatory, 214 South 11th St., Richmond, CA 94804 Highland Elementary, 2829 Moyers Rd., San Pablo, CA 94806 Grant Elementary, 2400 Downer Ave., Richmond, CA 94804
Aspire Richmond Technology Academy, 3170 Hilltop Mall Rd., Richmond, CA 94806 Cesar E. Chavez Elementary School, 960 17th St., Richmond, CA 94801 King Elementary, 4022 Florida Ave., Richmond, CA 94804
Ford Elementary, 2711 Maricopa Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Nurturing Independence through Artistic Development (NIAD Art Center)—Young Artist Leaders Program
Vista Hills Education Center, 2625 Barnard St., Richmond, CA 94806 Richmond Art Center, 2450 Barrett Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 NIAD Art Center, 551 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804
Walnut Creek Library, 644 N. Broadway, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Pogo Park—Enrichment Programs at Elm Playlot Elm Playlot, 720 Elm Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 58 Grantee Sites
The Practice Space—Mentorship and Leadership Program
CoBiz Richmond, 1503 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Voices Charter School, 201 28th St., Richmond, CA 94804 Sheldon Elementary School, 2601 May Rd., Richmond, CA 94803 FIERCE Advocates, 312 9th St., Richmond, CA 94801
The Practice Space, 317 11th St., Richmond, CA 94801
First 5 Contra Costa, 4005 Port Chicago Hwy #120, Concord, CA 94520 El Cerrito High School, 540 Ashbury Ave., El Cerrito, CA 94530 Nystrom Elementary, 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Booker T. Anderson Community Center, 960 S 47th St., Richmond, CA 94804 Parchester Community Center, 3833 Collins Ave., Richmond, CA 94806 Salesian High School, 2851 Salesian Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Lincoln Elementary School, 29 6th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Nevin Community Center, 598 Nevin Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Shields Reid Community Center, 1410 Kelsey St., Richmond, CA 94801 Washington Elementary, 565 Wine St., Richmond, CA 94801 Project Avary—Leadership Program for Children of Incarcerated Parents
Clem Miller Environmental Education Center, 1 Bear Valley Rd., Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 Martin Griffin Preserve, 4900 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, CA 94970 California Academy of Science, 55 Music Concourse Dr., San Francisco CA 94118 El Cerrito Community Center, 7007 Moeser Ln., El Cerrito, CA 94530 Rafting, 7330 River Park Dr., Lotus, CA 95651
Stinson Beach, Highway 1, Stinson Beach, CA 94970
Challenge Sonoma Adventure Ropes Course, Orchard Rd, Eldridge, CA 95431 St. Dorothy’s Rest, 168 St. Dorothy Ave., Camp Meeker, CA 95419 Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, 900 Dornan Dr., Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond High School and the East Bay Center for the
Performing Arts—Richmond High School Music Department
Richmond High School, 1250 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 Downer Elementary School, 1231 18th St., San Pablo, CA 94806 Helms Middle School, 2500 Rd. 20, San Pablo, CA 94806
Ford Elementary, 2711 Maricopa Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Outdoors Coalition and YES Nature to
Neighborhoods—Outdoor Programming
Rob Hill Campground, 1475 Central Magazine Rd., San Francisco, CA 94129 Muir Beach, Pacific Way, Muir Beach, CA 94965
Point Pinole, 551 Giant Highway, Richmond, CA 94806
Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, 5755 McBryde Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Nystrom Elementary, 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Promise—Contra Costa College First Year
Experience Program
Contra Costa College, 2600 Mission Bell Dr., San Pablo, CA 94806 Six Flags, 1001 Fairgrounds Dr., Vallejo, CA 94589
UC Berkeley, 110 Sproul Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720
Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053 UC Davis, 1 Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616
59 Grantee Sites
Richmond Public Library—Homework Help and Tutoring
Program and Bay Area Tutoring Association
Richmond West Side Branch Library, 135 Washington Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 May Valley Community Center, 3530 Morningside Dr., Richmond, CA 94803 Richmond Library, 325 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Public Library Bayview Branch, 5100 Hartnett Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Nevin Community Center, 598 Nevin Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Shields Reid Community Center, 1410 Kelsey St., Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond City Recreation Complex, 3230 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Steelers Youth Football and Cheer Richmond City Recreation Complex, 3230 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Paradise Coast Sports Complex, 3940 City Gate Blvd. N, Naples, FL 34117 RYSE—Leadership Pathways Program RYSE Youth Center, 3939 Bissell Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 UC Davis, 1 Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616
Summer Search—Mentoring Program
Alvarado Park, 755 McBryde Ave., Richmond, CA 94806
Summer Search Office, 304 12th St., Oakland, CA 94607
Environmental Traveling Companions, 6700 CA-49, Lotus, CA 95651 Leadership Public Schools, Richmond, 880 Bissell Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Adventure Risk Challenge, PO Box 3208, Truckee, CA 96160 De Anza High School, 5000 Valley View Rd., Richmond, CA 94803 Deer Hill Expeditions, 7850 Rd. 41, Mancos, CO 81328
Sierra Nevada Journeys, 5900 Grizzly Rd., Portola, CA 96122 Summer Search Office, 2201 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612
Summer Search—Summer Outdoor Program
GirlVentures, 119 Filbert St., Oakland, CA 94607
Adventure Risk Challenge, PO Box 3208, Truckee, CA 96160 Deer Hill Expeditions, 7850 Rd. 41, Mancos, CO 81328
Sierra Nevada Journeys, 5900 Grizzly Rd., Portola, CA 96122 Summer Search Office, 2201 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612
Things That Creep—Neighborhood Snakes and
Neighborhood Reptiles
Michelle Obama Elementary School, 629 42nd St., Richmond, CA 94805 Olinda Elementary School, 5855 Olinda Rd., El Sobrante, CA 94803 Washington Elementary, 565 Wine St., Richmond, CA 94801 Coronado Elementary, 2100 Maine Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Ford Elementary, 2711 Maricopa Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Nystrom Elementary, 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Touch of New Life—Youth Public Safety Academy
Phila Burger Richmond CA, 1100 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 City of San Pablo Library, 13751 San Pablo Ave., San Pablo, CA 94806 San Pablo Police Training Center, 2300 El Portal Dr., Unit C, San Pablo, CA 94806 Wanlass Park, 2999 21st St., San Pablo, CA 94806
RFD Training Facility, 3506 Cutting Blvd., Richmond, CA 94804 Target, 4500 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801
Lovonya DeJean Middle School, 3400 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Richmond High School, 1250 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 60 Grantee Sites
The Watershed Project—Educational Programs
Tilden Regional Park, 1500 Central Park Dr., Berkeley, CA 94708 Brookside San Pablo Health Center, 2023 Vale Rd., San Pablo, CA 94806 Montalvin Manor Elementary School, 300 Christine Dr., San Pablo, CA 94806 Point Pinole, 551 Giant Highway, Richmond, CA 94806
Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, 5755 McBryde Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, 900 Dornan Dr., Richmond, CA 94801 Verde Elementary, 2000 Giaramita St., Richmond, CA 94801 Nystrom Elementary, 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond High School, 1250 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 West Contra Costa Public Education Fund—Richmond
Freedom School Nystrom Elementary, 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 West Contra Costa Unified School District and West Contra Costa Public Education Fund—Positive Behavioral Intervention System
Pinole Valley High School, 2900 Pinole Valley Rd., Pinole, CA 94564 Coronado Elementary, 2100 Maine Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Lovonya DeJean Middle School, 3400 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 YES Nature to Neighborhoods—Youth Leadership Pathway
YES Nature to Neighborhoods/Gateway Mountain Center, 10038 Meadow Way, Unit D, Truckee, CA 96161 Richmond City Recreation Complex, 3230 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 CYO Camp, 2136 Bohemian Hwy., Occidental, CA 95465
Hidden Villa, 26870 Moody Rd., Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 YES Nature to Neighborhoods, 3029 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 YMCA Camp Loma Mar, 9900 Pesadero Creek Rd, Loma Mar, CA 94021 Camp Mendocino, PO Box 1790, Fort Bragg, CA 95437
St. Dorothy’s Rest, 168 St. Dorothy Ave., Camp Meeker, CA 95419 Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, 900 Dornan Dr., Richmond, CA 94801 61 Appendix C. List of Program Sites by City Council District In the following tables, the parenthetical number next to each organization name indicates the corresponding core need being addressed by the organization.
Core Need 1: Mental and Behavioral Health Needs
Core Need 2: Physical Health and Access
Core Need 3: Learning Needs
Core Need 4: Safety, Community, and Belonging Needs
District 1
Neighborhood Councils: Iron Triangle, Belding Woods, North & East Program site Funded organizations
Cesar E. Chavez Elementary School, 960 17th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Child Abuse Prevention Council (1) Mindful Life Project (1)
Cobiz Richmond, 1503 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 The Practice Space (3) East Bay Center for the Performing Arts, 339 11th St., Richmond, CA 94801 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts (4) Elm Playlot, 720 Elm Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Pogo Park (2) FIERCE Advocates, 312 9th St., Richmond, CA 94801 The Practice Space (3) Ford Elementary, 2711 Maricopa Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources (1)
Things That Creep (3)
Mindful Life Project (1)
Richmond High School Music Department (4)
Nevin Community Center, 598 Nevin Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 The Practice Space (3)
City of Richmond, Recreation Division (3)
Richmond Library (3)
NIAD Art Center, 551 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 Nurturing Independence through Artistic Development (NIAD) (4) Peres K–8, 719 5th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Growing Together, Bay Area (2) Phila Burger Richmond CA, 1100 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 Touch of New Life (4) The Practice Space, 317 11th St., Richmond, CA 94801 The Practice Space (3) Richmond High School, 1250 23rd St., Richmond, CA 94804 Desarrollo Familiar (1)
The Watershed Project (3)
Richmond High School Music Department (4)
Touch of New Life (4)
The Hidden Genius Project (3)
62 District 2
Neighborhood Councils: Shields-Reid, Point Richmond, Santa Fe, Hilltop District, Parchester Village, Marina Bay Program site Funded organizations
Aspire Richmond Technology Academy, 3170 Hilltop Mall Rd., Richmond, CA 94806 Mindful Life Project (1) FLY Office, 3260 Blume Dr., Richmond, CA 94806 Fresh Lifelines for Youth (4) Making Waves Academy, 4123 Lakeside Dr., Richmond, CA 94806 The Hidden Genius Project (3) Miller Knox Regional Shoreline, 900 Dornan Dr., Richmond, CA 94801 Project Avary (2)
The Watershed Project (3)
YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2)
Parchester Community Center, 3833 Collins Ave., Richmond, CA 94806 The Practice Space (3) City of Richmond, Recreation Division (3)
Point Pinole, 551 Giant Highway, Richmond, CA 94806 Richmond Outdoors Coalition (2) The Watershed Project (3)
Richmond West Side Branch Library, 135 Washington Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Richmond Library (3) Shields Reid Community Center, 1410 Kelsey St., Richmond, CA 94801 City of Richmond, Recreation Division (3)
The Practice Space (3)
Richmond Library (3)
Washington Elementary, 565 Wine St., Richmond, CA 94801 The Practice Space (3)
Things That Creep (3)
Growing Together, Bay Area (2)
63 District 3
Neighborhood Councils: Atchison Village, Iron Triangle, Coronado, Richmond Village/Metro Square, Cortez/Stege, Pullman, Park Plaza Program site Funded organizations
Bay Area Girls Club, 260 Broadway, Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Girls Club (1) Coronado Elementary, 2100 Maine Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Bay Area Community Resources (1)
West Contra Costa Unified School District (1)
Things That Creep (3)
Child Abuse Prevention Council (1)
Golden Gate Community School Richmond, 2200 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Fresh Lifelines for Youth (4) GRIP, 165 22nd St, Richmond, CA 94801 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (1) King Elementary, 4022 Florida Ave., Richmond, CA 94804
Growing Together, Bay Area (2)
Bay Area Community Resources (1)
Mindful Life Project (1)
Leadership Public Schools, Richmond, 880 Bissell Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Summer Search Mentoring (4) Lincoln Elementary School, 29 6th St., Richmond, CA 94801 Bay Area Community Resources (1)
Child Abuse Prevention Council (1)
The Practice Space (3)
Lovonya DeJean Middle School, 3400 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 West Contra Costa Unified School District (1)
Touch of New Life (4)
The Hidden Genius Project (3)
Desarrollo Familiar (1)
Nystrom Elementary, 230 Harbour Way S, Richmond, CA 94804 The Hidden Genius Project (3)
The Watershed Project (3)
Richmond Outdoors Coalition (2)
The Practice Space (3)
West Contra Costa Public Education Fund (3)
Things That Creep (3)
RichmondBUILD/YouthBUILD Office, 360 S. 27th St., Richmond, CA 94804 City of Richmond, Employment and Training (3) Richmond City Recreation Complex, 3230 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 The Black Neighborhood (1)
Richmond Library (3)
YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2)
Richmond Steelers (2)
Richmond College Preparatory, 214 South 11th St., Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project (1) Richmond Greenway, Richmond Greenway Trail, Richmond, CA 94804 Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Bay Area 64 Program site Funded organizations
RYSE Youth Center, 3939 Bissell Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 RYSE (3)
The Hidden Genius Project (3)
Fresh Lifelines for Youth (4)
City of Richmond, Office of Neighborhood Safety (1)
Target, 4500 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 Touch of New Life (4) Voices Charter School, 201 28th St., Richmond, CA 94804 The Practice Space (3) West Contra Costa Family Justice Center, 256 24th St., Richmond, CA 94804 Contra Costa Family Justice Alliance (1) District 4
Neighborhood Councils: Hilltop Village, Fairmede/Hilltop, Hilltop Green, Quail Hill, Greenridge Heights, May Valley, El Sobrante Hills, Greenbriar, Carriage Hills North, Castro Heights, Carriage Hills South
Program site Funded organizations
De Anza High School, 5000 Valley View Rd., Richmond, CA 94803 Fresh Lifelines for Youth (4) Summer Search Mentoring (4)
Highland Elementary, 2829 Moyers Rd., San Pablo, CA 94806 Mindful Life Project (1) May Valley Community Center, 3530 Morningside Dr., Richmond, CA 94803 Richmond Library (3) Olinda Elementary School, 5855 Olinda Rd., El Sobrante, CA 94803 Things That Creep (3) Sheldon Elementary School, 2601 May Rd., Richmond, CA 94803 The Practice Space (3) Vista Hills Education Center, 2625 Barnard St., Richmond, CA 94806 Nurturing Independence through Artistic Development (NIAD) (4) Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, 5755 McBryde Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 The Watershed Project (3) Richmond Outdoors Coalition (2)
65 District 5
Neighborhood Councils: Southwest Annex, Richmond Annex, Panhandle Annex, Parkview, Marina Bay, Eastshore, Laurel Park, Cortez/Stege Program site Funded organizations
Booker T. Anderson Community Center, 960 S 47th St., Richmond, CA 94804 The Practice Space (3) City of Richmond, Recreation Division (3)
Kennedy High School, 4300 Cutting Blvd., Richmond, CA 94804 The Black Neighborhood (1) RFD Training Facility, 3506 Cutting Blvd., Richmond, CA 94804 Touch of New Life (4) Richmond Public Library Bayview Branch, 5100 Hartnett Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Library (3) District 6
Neighborhood Councils: North & East, East Richmond, Park Plaza Program site Funded organizations
Alvarado Park, 755 McBryde Ave., Richmond, CA 94806 Summer Search Mentoring (4) Burg Park, 2910 Clinton Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 The Black Neighborhood (1) Grant Elementary, 2400 Downer Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Mindful Life Project (1) The Latina Center, 3701 Barrett Ave., Richmond CA 94805 The Latina Center (1) Michelle Obama Elementary School, 629 42nd St., Richmond, CA 94805 Things That Creep (3) Richmond Art Center, 2450 Barrett Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 Nurturing Independence through Artistic Development (NIAD) (4) Richmond Library, 325 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 Richmond Library (3) Salesian High School, 2851 Salesian Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 The Practice Space (3) The Hidden Genius Project (3)
YES Nature to Neighborhoods, 3029 Macdonald Ave., Richmond, CA 94804 YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2) 66 North Richmond
Program sites Funded organizations
Urban Tilth, 515 Silver Ave., Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons (2) Verde Elementary, 2000 Giaramita St., Richmond, CA 94801 18 Reasons (2)
The Watershed Project (3)
Child Abuse Prevention Council (1)
Outside of Richmond
Program sites Funded organizations
Adventure Risk Challenge, PO Box 3208, Truckee, CA 96160 Summer Search Mentoring (4) Summer Search Summer (2)
Betty Reid Soskin Middle School, 1121 Allview Ave., El Sobrante, CA 94803 The Hidden Genius Project (3) Brookside San Pablo Health Center, 2023 Vale Rd., San Pablo, CA 94806 The Watershed Project (3) California Academy of Science, 55 Music Concourse Dr., San Francisco, CA 94118 Project Avary (2) Camp Mendocino, PO Box 1790, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2) El Cerrito Community Center, 7007 Moeser Ln., El Cerrito, CA 94530 Project Avary (2) El Cerrito High School, 540 Ashbury Ave., El Cerrito, CA 94530 The Practice Space (3) Chabot and Space Center, 10000 Skyline Blvd., Oakland, CA 94619 Bay Area Girls Club (1)
The Black Neighborhood (1)
The Latina Center (1)
Challenge Sonoma Adventure Ropes Course, Orchard Rd., Eldridge, CA 95431 Project Avary (2) City of San Pablo Library, 13751 San Pablo Ave., San Pablo, CA 94806 Touch of New Life (4) Clem Miller Environmental Education Center, 1 Bear Valley Rd., Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 Project Avary (2)
Contra Costa College, 2600 Mission Bell Dr., San Pablo, CA 94806 Richmond Promise (3) CYO Camp, 2136 Bohemian Hwy, Occidental, CA 95465 YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2) 67 Program sites Funded organizations
Deer Hill Expeditions, 7850 Rd 41, Mancos, CO 81328 Summer Search Mentoring (4) Summer Search Summer (2)
Downer Elementary School, 1231 18th St., San Pablo, CA 94806 Richmond High School Music Department (4) Environmental Traveling Companions, 6700 CA-49, Lotus, CA 95651 Summer Search Mentoring (4) First 5 Contra Costa, 4005 Port Chicago Hwy. #120, Concord, CA 94520 The Practice Space (3) Fresh Approach, 5060 Commercial Circle, Concord, CA 94520 Fresh Approach (3) GirlVentures, 119 Filbert Street, Oakland, CA 94607 Summer Search Summer (2) Grizzly Peak, 3092–3148 Grizzly Peak Blvd., Berkeley, CA 94705 The Black Neighborhood (1) Helms Middle School, 2500 Rd 20, San Pablo, CA 94806 The Hidden Genius Project (3) Richmond High School Music Department (4)
Hidden Villa, 26870 Moody Rd., Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2) Invictus Academy, 7150 Portola Dr., El Cerrito, CA 94530 The Hidden Genius Project (3) Martin Griffin Preserve, 4900 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, CA 94970 Project Avary (2) Mira Vista K–8, 6397 Hazel Ave., Richmond, CA 94805 Growing Together, Bay Area (2) Montalvin Manor Elementary School, 300 Christine Dr., San Pablo, CA 94806 The Watershed Project (3) Mt. McKinley, 202 Glacier Dr., Martinez, CA 94553 Fresh Lifelines for Youth (4) Muir Beach, Pacific Way, Muir Beach, CA 94965 Richmond Outdoors Coalition (2) Paradise Coast Sports Complex, 3940 City Gate Blvd. N, Naples, FL 34117 Richmond Steelers (2) Pinole Valley High School, 2900 Pinole Valley Rd., Pinole, CA 94564 West Contra Costa Unified School District (1) Rafting, 7330 River Park Dr., Lotus, CA 95651 Project Avary (2) Rob Hill Campground, 1475 Central Magazine Rd., San Francisco, CA 94129 Richmond Outdoors Coalition (2) San Pablo Police Training Center, 2300 El Portal Dr., Unit C, San Pablo, CA 94806 Touch of New Life (4) 68 Program sites Funded organizations
Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053 Richmond Promise (3) Sierra Nevada Journeys, 5900 Grizzly Rd., Portola, CA 96122 Summer Search Mentoring (4) Summer Search Summer (2)
Six Flags, 1001 Fairgrounds Drive, Vallejo, CA 94589 Richmond Promise (3) St. Dorothy’s Rest, 168 St. Dorothy Ave., Camp Meeker, CA 95419 YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2) Project Avary (2)
Stinson Beach, Highway 1, Stinson Beach, CA 94970 Project Avary (2) Summer Search Office, 2201 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612 Summer Search Mentoring (4) Summer Search Summer (2)
Summer Search Office, 304 12th St., Oakland, CA 94607 Summer Search Mentoring (4) Tilden Regional Park, 1500 Central Park Dr., Berkeley, CA 94708 The Watershed Project (3) UC Berkeley, 110 Sproul Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 Richmond Promise (3) UC Davis, 1 Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 RYSE (3)
Richmond Promise (3)
Walnut Creek Library, 644 N. Broadway, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Nurturing Independence through Artistic Development (NIAD) (4) Wanlass Park, 2999 21st St., San Pablo, CA 94806 Touch of New Life (4) YES Nature to Neighborhoods/ Gateway Mountain Center, 10038 Meadow Way, Unit D, Truckee, CA 96161 YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2) YMCA Camp Loma Mar, 9900 Pesadero Creek Rd., Loma Mar, CA 94021 YES Nature to Neighborhoods (2) 69