Good morning and welcome to the November 6, 2025 meeting of the Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission.

The time is now 10 06 a.m.

and the meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the role to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Chair.

Vice Chair Richardson.

Here.

Member Volsey is absent.

Member Williams is absent.

Member Thomas.

Present.

Member Gafari.

Present.

Member Kravitz Words.

Here.

And Chair Morris.

Present.

Thank you.

We have quorum.

I would like to remind members of the public in chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

So the original people of this land, the Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu Valley in Plains Newalk, Patwin Wintu peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria.

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous Peoples History contributions and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing.

I pledge allegiance to the flood.

The United States of America and to the Republic for which we stand one nation undergoing indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Okay, our first business today is approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips.

Did you want to say something?

Um yeah, just really quickly to the commission.

There are several items on the consent calendar for today's agenda, including um the final annual report for fiscal year 2425 and then the follow-up log and attached to the follow-up log, you'll see um the requested um templates for financial and programmatic reporting for grantees.

Um so I just wanted to draw the commission's attention.

This would be the appropriate time to speak on either of those items.

Thank you.

So I just wanted to note the two the three items that are pending.

Um, and I know Commissioner Williams isn't with us today, but Commissioner Kravitz words, one of the items that is pending is the map of impact areas and how fungals are spread out with the funding.

It states that this request is pending with the Sacramento Children's Fund staff, the city's GIS team, and the evaluation firm hired as a result of the RFP for evaluation services.

Do you have any questions about that or something?

I don't.

And I saw, I mean, I can see on the um the annual report the sort of breakdown of um funded awards by district as well.

But yeah, the mapping piece is would be a cool visual additional.

Do you have any comments really on just clarifying?

Because for me, I guess the question is so cities GIS team.

Um, is this also the team that I may be getting this wrong, but um the ones that were working on the C tool?

Where is that?

Correct, and so um, I think this is a larger project that we'll look at as part of the evaluation and potentially a dashboard to display some of the evaluation results from programming.

Uh but if there's a specific request that we might be able to accommodate that's more simple, then please communicate that and we'll see what we can do.

But in in my mind, the request is for a larger mapping of where the actual services are landing once we get um more of those details from the reporting.

And that would be a collaboration with uh the evaluation firm we bring on board and potentially the GIS team to create a seed-like mapping tool that could be um public facing.

Okay, um, so since this request was made in May of this year, I haven't um I don't have in front of me the calendar for next year, but um I just don't want this to kind of like fall on in in terms on the bottom of the list of priorities because I do actually think it's really important for us to see how the fund goals are spread out in terms of the uh where the funding was awarded.

So if possible, can we try to get an update by the third quarter of 2026?

I don't know how many meetings do we have a meeting?

I don't we haven't we've seen the calendar, but I don't have it in front of me.

So yeah, and so I think a simple map that uh gives the location of the funded agencies would be possible.

Um and then a third quarter for um mapping of where the services are actually landing, as in, for example, in my mind, I'm thinking of mapping the seed tools that are zip codes that um the funded agencies are actually hitting.

So essentially they would report in their programmatic reports that we're serving youth in these seed tool zip codes, which is part of the programmatic reporting, and then we'd be able to map that.

I don't know that third the third quarter is realistic, but I'll definitely provide an update and we'll keep that item on the follow-up log as pending until we can give a sufficient response.

Okay, is that helpful to know also, Commissioner?

Um, all right, so in terms of Commissioner Williams' request for the violence prevention, is it depart?

No, it's uh office to come and present.

Where are we on the status of reaching out to the office?

So we've reached out to the Office of Violence Prevention, um, and uh we're hoping to schedule a meeting in 2026, uh, but we're still in communication with them and confirming with their office.

Okay, is it would it I mean it is pretty if I go back to Commissioner Williams' request, I'm sure it'll be more specific, but it is pretty vague on the um log here.

So I'm just wondering if there's a need for us to reiterate maybe like the specifics of like what we would want to see.

I think overall, I mean this came about really when we first started meeting.

I would say because of the fund, you know, part of the fund priorities in the children's fund is also violence prevention, and so making sure we weren't necessarily duplicating but filling in gaps and like enhancing efforts.

So can we also try to do that by the second quarter of next year at least?

Well, actually, yeah, let's try to do that by second quarter because I think it'll be good as we're looking to also um update the strategic investment plan.

Yeah, absolutely.

It's it's really dependent on that office and um their scheduling as well.

Uh, but we will attempt make every attempt to try to schedule them in 2026, all right.

And then the last one that I see pending is um a request from you, vice chair around the reporting standard of how we measure impact.

So um can we get an update on that?

The request is pending.

I believe I was holding on that one.

You said my request, yeah.

I believe um we were waiting for, I think it was because we were waiting for the evaluator.

And I'm trying to remember exactly what was the conversation around there, but I think it was one of our meetings agenda setting meetings where we were talking about that because I do want to know what those areas surrounding impact look like, but I thought we were waiting for an evaluator to come on board before we discuss those, unless we do have those of what you utilize now, and then we can look at what that looks like when once the evaluator gets here.

Yeah, so um that's helpful, Vice Chair.

I think I the intention was we thought that partially the request was met by including the reporting templates.

But since we are bringing on a new evaluator and those templates might change, I didn't want to take it off the log without fully um answering uh the request.

And so I think partially it's been answered, but we have more to come once we get the evaluator on board.

Okay, all right.

Um so if there aren't any other questions, I think we should be good to move this forward.

So um is there a motion or can I?

Oh, yeah, go ahead, Commissioner Cowards would.

Is this the time to ask about the uh the quarterly progress reports?

Is that what you said?

Okay.

I just had a quick question about numbers, the section six of the quarterly progress report and just like the experiences of participants and their kind of background characteristics and just trying to think about how that how these align and match up with the fund goals for the children's fund.

And I think all of these are important indicators.

And just to double down a little bit on the um the youth who may be impacted directly by by violence, I'm wondering if there's maybe room to add a an indicator around individuals who have experienced violence directly.

I know we have a couple of funded uh grantees who may work directly with individuals because they have been directly impacted by violence, and so I'm wondering if that's an opportunity to add just an additional indicator.

Absolutely, I think that would be a great addition to the report.

And if there's ideas for other uh potential indicators that would like to be captured here, the commission would like to capture here.

Uh please let us know.

Thanks.

I'm sure Shannon is watching while sick and being like, I have a comment.

Um is there a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

No motion.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Kravitz Wurtz and a second by Commissioner.

Um Thomas and Vice Chair.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Thank you, Chair.

My apologies.

Thank you, Chair.

Um so again, I have a uh a motion by Commissioner Kravitzwurts and a second by Commissioner Thomas.

I think I heard correct.

Thank you.

Um Vice Chair Richardson.

Aye.

Member Volsey is absence, member Williams is absent.

Member Thomas?

Aye.

Member Kafari.

Aye.

Member Kravitz Wurtz.

Aye.

And Chair Morris.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Okay, we will now proceed to the discussion calendar.

Item number one is Sacramento Children's Fund implementation update and GBI and OFO.

Am I the only one who doesn't know an OFO stands for?

What is an OFO still?

Notice of funding opportunity.

Okay, got it, got it, got it.

No clue.

Right.

So let's jump right in.

Um today's presentation, we'll go over a few quick implementation updates.

Um we'll look at the reporting schedules for grantees, and then we'll go into an overview of the guaranteed basic income uh NOFO, the application process, and then we will jump to questions and or feedback on the implementation or specifically the guaranteed basic income.

No.

Okay, so uh quick update on what's happening with the children's fund.

So we have um executed 14 out of 15 CBO grant agreements.

Um we have two um non-city public entity agreements that are pending, mostly because there's negotiations going on on some of the language in the agreements, uh, which is pretty typical for two public entities entering into agreement.

Um we have made 14 advanced payments uh to grantees, so that would be 25% of their first grant term.

So according to their budget of 1.5 years, which is the initial term of the grant, we will give them 25% of what they've put in that first term budget.

So on 1118, Sacramento Children's Fund staff will take a consent item to city council to establish multiple SCF projects.

This is an administrative and fiscal function that will allow the funds to be appropriated across departments and track separately from other large parent projects.

So essentially what we're doing is we in the city, in order to fund multiple city projects from the Sacramento Children's Fund, we have to go to council to create new projects and then move and be allowed to move the money over.

And so we will just go to consent for that, but we will be briefing city council offices on exactly what we're doing and why we're doing it.

This administrative procedure will allow us to have greater oversight because the funds will be tracked in separate projects, which will allow us to see exactly what dollars were spent on.

Grantees will be allowed to invoice for any startup costs, say they started to order supplies or hire staff during this first period, even if they weren't providing services yet.

So in addition to that first 25% payment, we'll be able to invoice for that first quarter.

As far as programmatic reporting goes, we're not expecting large numbers.

Most grantees have not started serving youth yet, but we are hoping to get some narrative about what they're doing to start their programming.

Okay, I'm gonna jump right into the guaranteed basic income NOFO overview.

So in preparation of this NOFO staff met with several industry professionals, including Santa Clara County who administers a program, I foster, St.

Petersburg in Florida, as well as the State of California Social Services Department.

The proposed NOFO for the Sacramento Children's Fund will run from July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2030.

Initial funding will begin with a three-year term and is eligible for two additional years subject to performance review and availability.

Eligible applicants, 501c3 nonprofits, non-city public entities, and technically the city, although we will not be applying.

So we have a total of eight million dollars available for this NOFO, but the city will fund an initial three-year grant period for up to 4.8 million dollars.

Matching funds, there's no match requirement for 501c3s, but non-city entities wishing to apply would need to provide a hundred percent cash match, and any non-city public entity must demonstrate a cash match for each dollar receives from the fund.

So who is eligible to apply?

There's a requirement that you entities wishing to apply must have an organizational budget at or above three million.

Have at least one year of experience administering a GBI or UBI program to children or youth in the last five years, must be either a public agency or 501c3.

Insurance is required.

The entity must demonstrate the operational capacity and ability to fulfill a program and administrative requirements and deadlines outlined in the NOFO, and they mustn't be in good standing, must be in good standing with the city.

Okay, I've already mentioned that according to the breakdown that was decided in the strategic investment plan, which would allocate 20% of the estimated five-year funding towards GBI.

We have roughly $8.1 million available in this NOFO for a total of a five-year contract.

The city is looking to award one applicant an initial three-year agreement of up to $4.8 million with the intention and hope to extend that grant for an additional two years and one year increments.

So our application timeline.

This is a tentative timeline, but so far we are on track.

We would like to release the NOFO in early December.

I'm not going to go through every single date, but the key dates are that we would like to give at least 45 days to the applicant, if not 45 to 60 days to apply to the NOFO.

We'd like to conduct proposal review in early 2026 between February and March.

We will need to take this item to City Council because the contract will be well over 250,000 a year.

And we plan to start the contract July 1st, 2026.

Okay, this map is a little hard to see, so I'm going to go to the next one.

Before we get into the scope of what we're asking for in the NOFO, I just wanted to give you a quick data snapshot.

So SCF staff, as I mentioned, we met with other GBI UBI programs outside of our local jurisdiction, and we also referenced memos that the commission had received during the strategic planning process, specifically related to transition transitional age foster youth.

And youth aging out of the foster care system do face increased risks for homelessness, inadequate housing, low educational and career attainment, early parenthood physical and mental health problems, and involvement with the criminal justice system among other negative outcomes.

Population level data for the city of Sacramento for this population is hard to acquire.

However, we do have recent data for the county of Sacramento that shows a total of 587 foster youth in the county of Sacramento between July 2024 and June 2025.

And out of those 587 foster youth in 24-25, 90 youth aged out of the foster care system.

As you can see, the aged out category there looks like it's trending down a little bit.

However, as you can imagine, this program might be a rolling enrollment, so we might get more over five years.

So that's just a little information to inform about the scope.

So a program scope or eligibility.

Basic guaranteed basic income recipients must meet the following criteria.

Participants must be youth in or transitioning out of foster care ages 18 to 24.

Participants' income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Participants may not be receiving guaranteed income from another program, and participants must consider the county of Sacramento to be home.

Prior residency and residency of an immediate family member, history of attending a K-12 school, or currently receiving homeless services within the city or county of Sacramento would be the eligibility.

Okay, program scope requirements.

So the keyword here is minimum.

Applicants to the GBI NOFO must propose programs that meet the following minimum requirements.

The idea is that we would like subject matter experts or the applicants to propose their best program model based on research and fund availability.

So at a minimum, the program proposals must serve 100 foster youth with direct cash payments of at least 750 a month for a minimum benefit period of two years.

We expect to receive other variations of total number served benefit amount and benefit period.

So what the proposals come in at might look a little bit different, but at a minimum, we want to meet this scope.

Other program scope requirements.

We will require a comprehensive outreach and enrollment strategy.

We will require that a fast, efficient, low burden mechanism for fund disbursement to participants is included, fund requests to support disbursement platforms are an eligible administrative expense.

Provide optional wraparound services such as housing navigation, peer support, group mentorship, LGBTQ, supportive services, financial counseling, mental health resources, and more.

The word optional there means that it's optional to the participant, not optional for the entity to provide it.

Also provide optional public benefits counseling at enrollment and provide and pursue benefit protection for recipients such as waivers available for CalWorks, CalFresh, housing, child care, transportation, and utility assistance, which means we don't want this cash payment to affect their other benefits.

And an additional requirement is that applicant must partner with a third party evaluator to assess program effectiveness effectiveness and submit individual level data to the city, providing the following information individuals referred to the GI program and eligibility, enrollment and dropout dates, demographic information, and programmatic data, including participation and benefit counseling and dates of GI payments.

So we've communicated that we would like the two, since there will be two separate evaluators, this will be a contract within the contract, but we would like to be able to pull the data from the GBI evaluation and incorporate it into our SCF evaluation reports.

Okay, moving on to proposal rating criteria.

So as you can see, we have several rating factors, including organizational and partner experience and capacity for 20 points, program design and readiness, which obviously includes the design of the program, but also how ready are they to launch it.

GBI is a very complex program.

And what we're really looking for is do you have established relationships with partners that are going to be essential to this work?

Looking at County of Sacramento.

Do you have an existing MOU?

Do you have a path forward to get an MOU?

How are you going to plan to get access to these participants?

So outreach and enrollment strategy.

They need to obviously in detail give a good synopsis of how they plan to reach the participants and enroll them.

You have to have a certain knowledge base about how to outreach and enroll transitional age foster youth in order to be successful.

And then budget and budget narrative.

Five extra preference points.

So that will be the total rating factors add up to 100 with five actual with five preference points for local providers.

There's a total maximum score of 105.

One thing I wanted to say really quickly as well is that we will be recruiting for the GBI.

We are going to actively start recruiting for the GBI advisory review committee.

If any commissioners are interested, we're also really looking for panelists with lived experience.

So we'd really appreciate any help in recruiting those panelists.

Okay, this part is really just administrative.

We are going to require supporting documents from the entities that are pretty standard for most NOFOs.

So board rosters, organizational budget, financial statements, et cetera.

And then the application will be composed of four attachments.

That will answer to the rating criteria categories.

We'll also be asking for a work plan and timeline because this specific NOFO is very important that you have a good plan for how you how you will be enrolling youth into GBI.

And so we want to know exactly how they're going to lay out their work plan and timeline timeline, including the benefit period, including enrollment period.

So we're really looking for specifics there.

So that'll be wrapped up into the application.

Okay, that concludes my presentation, and I'll take any comments, questions, or feedback.

So we're gonna go to public testimony on this item.

Thank you, Julie.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have several speaker slips.

Our first speaker is April Havist.

Not on this item.

Oh, the next item then.

Okay.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Adro.

Hello everyone.

My name is Adro.

I'm with United Way, California Capital Region.

I want to first commend you all for advocating for the guaranteed income set aside.

It's very important that we directly invest in our youth with direct resources, those who have been most denied opportunities for success.

And so I want to thank you all for that.

Also just want to continue to encourage the commission, and I'm glad to hear that it is mandatory for wraparound services because we have seen the importance of making sure we take a holistic approach with supporting our youth, everything from financial counseling to housing supports.

At United Way, we've been operating a guaranteed income program for former foster youth, all attending postsecondary education, and we've seen the importance of that, and so want to definitely encourage you all to take that into account as we're going forward with the RFP.

And again, thank you all.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Mercedes.

Good morning.

I'm with California Youth Connection here on behalf of the Sacramento chapter.

For the last two years, we have been passionately advocating for the guaranteed basic income for former foster youth in Sacramento County.

So it's really great to finally see this hit the ground running.

I don't have too much to say.

I just want to let you guys know that we are here.

We are very excited to be part of this process.

Definitely excited to be involved in the Lived Experience panel as well as the review board for those organizations that are applying for the NOFO.

A few things that I just want to flag for everyone's attention as we think about eligibility, specifically about protecting youth's access to public benefits.

This is something that is very critical, especially right now in the climate that we're in.

So I do want to make sure that we are taking some proactive steps to ensure that those public benefits that you may already be receiving are protected before we start enrolling them into the program.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Clarissa.

I have a children's fund as well.

I guess just to clarify, we are.

So the item, the meeting is about the children's fund.

So, but this item specifically is around the guaranteed basic income, but the next item is our community engagement plan.

So if you're are you gonna comment on the community engagement plan?

Okay.

I just want to make sure you guys don't miss your opportunity.

We'll do it on matters.

Okay, got it.

Alright, with that, I have no more speakers on this item.

Alright, so commissioners, um, do you all have any comments on this item?

Okay, Commissioner Kravitz words.

You and for yeah, allowing us to kind of see um insight ahead of time and before the the um the no foe goes out.

Um, I know that was um uh an ask that I had had, and so I just really appreciate seeing it.

I looked in detail at the um the not only the PowerPoint but uh the document that was provided um online as well.

Um, so mainly mainly just thanks for thanks for sharing all of this.

It's it's great.

Um I did have one question just about um alignment between the the what you just shared and the document online about the guaranteed income and it's just in relationship to the evaluation piece, and you mentioned um that there would still be data collection happening and there's sort of an expectation of that, um, and so I was just hoping for a little bit more clarity because in that document they reference you know, there's there's an abundance of evidence in um in support of of guaranteed income programs, and and the recommendation is that no funded evaluation be built in, and so can you just provide a little bit of clarity um about that?

Yeah, sure.

So um the document online you're referencing is a memo that the commission received um with uh their recommendations.

Um in this instance, city staff went against the recommendation in the memo and decided to include um a built-in evaluator in with the applicant, mostly because per the measure we have to produce evaluation reports.

Um and seeing as 20% of the five-year plan is going towards GBI, it was our professional decision that we would be remiss if we did not collect data and report on the entire fund.

And so that's why we made the decision to go forward with an evaluator against the recommendation because it's built into the measure and we felt that was appropriate.

Got it.

Thanks for that clarification.

So it's an external evaluator on top of then the applicant to manage the programmatic piece.

Correct, and so what we're asking is for the applicant to uh include in their budget and go out and get an external evaluator to work with them to evaluate evaluate their program and then hand off that data to us.

Um, we'll work with them.

Uh so they're going to evaluate their own program, have an external evaluator to evaluate their program and pass it to us, and we're going to incorporate that into our larger evaluation.

Got it.

Thanks.

Commissioner, or Vice Chair Richardson.

Thank you, Julie, for that report.

Question for you can we get the PowerPoint afterwards?

Because I guess I was looking for like the PowerPoint to be on here, so I can kind of go back, but that just may be me who needs to see things in my face afterwards.

Yeah, absolutely.

I'll send it out.

Okay.

I do have a couple of questions.

They may be silly, but we're gonna ask them.

Um, what was the age requirement that we said uh for GBI of what we're looking for the youth to be?

18 to 24.

18 to 24.

I want to go back to the access to public benefits because when that part came up, I was a little concerned only because, and I don't know if this is something that we can do anything about just because I'm not as skilled in this particular area, but I don't know how we actually provide the protection when public benefit programs are looking at income total.

So one of the commissioners want to let me know how is there a way that when this benefit is awarded to those youth that is not included in their overall income because from my knowing, I'm thinking this would be considered some type of income that that would be reported.

Great question.

Um, and essentially from what the research that I've uh seen is that uh the applicant can pursue waivers from the state that would allow these youth to not only receive the stipend um but as well as keep their benefits, and so it is an administrative process that we're asking the applicant to pursue so that they don't so that they can have these waivers um and not lose their benefits.

Okay, so with that said, is it a requirement that we can put down or a recommendation that we can put down for whomever receives this, whoever wins this RFP that they in those wraparound services this is something that they speak with all of those youth about just because I don't know if this is something that would you know you know or I want it to be something well I'm assuming that we would all want it to be something since we're requiring it that they go over so that way they know how to access and obtain those waivers.

Correct so it currently is a requirement that the applicant has to pursue benefit waivers and uh help the youth to not lose their benefits.

Okay.

So you know we're hoping that there's also questions within the NOFO that they have to respond to how they plan to do to pursue that and uh in their program design.

Okay.

That's it for now.

Commissioner Gafari.

Hi yes and um thank you Julie for your presentation.

I also want to second what Gina said about the PowerPoint if we could get that there's a lot of good information on um on that.

And I um I also want to second the difficult challenges that some of our Sacramento youth are facing with benefits being taken away and want to make sure that we're paying attention and being aware of any potential obstacles that we might face with with getting this money out maybe even before they pop up.

Also um what we don't want is after this um the GBI goes out is having our youth be in the same position that they that they are when they are receiving um the when they first receive the assistance so are we thinking about um sustaining this assistance with partnering with works uh workforce programs uh trades such as construction trades things like that um so that way um we're setting up our youth for success so I just kind of want to bring that up um to so it's on our minds oh I thought you were gonna speak to that but if there's no answer I I do have a couple of questions um thank you commissioners for your comments I do I just want to bring up um A B 12 because you know youth that are under that are engaging in A B 12 they also technically would be within that age range so are does that impact their eligibility for this type of program or would that be decided?

Could you expand on A B12 what that means?

I can I can probably answer that a little bit so AB12 is extended foster care.

That's traditionally what happens so after 21 there is no support so that's where something like guaranteed basic income would be triggered for them essentially but we can look into the eligibility requirements and see if there's any like legal reasons as to why they could not but we would need to do a little more research into that yeah I think that would be important just because it is still within that eligibility age range and you know extended foster care doesn't necessarily mean they're getting all the help that they need so sorry is the idea to to keep it from to expand it to say 16 to 24 depending on no it's just the idea is to not if somebody is a part of AB 12 that shouldn't dismiss them from being eligible for a GBI.

Great point we'll look into that.

The other comment I had was around the review committee um it's great to hear that you all are looking for folks with lived experience I do think that you know as best we can learn from the past because that was a big hurdle for I think the process last time around is just reviewing for conflicts of interest and that kind of set us back maybe even probably like two months or more.

So I'm glad to hear that that's in the works now and I think there's probably folks here in the room today that could um be a part of that and express their interest.

I do wonder around the evaluator, because if if you could just clarify for me, I know uh Commissioner Cravisworth brought up this question already.

So for the funding, not GBI that just that is going out currently to awarded projects, the evaluator is being hired by the city.

So we're using administrative funds to hire that evaluator to evaluate those programs, but we're asking for the GBI applicant to hire their own evaluator to evaluate that program.

That's correct, um, and given the ample amount of budget, eight million dollars, uh, we're willing to put um administrative funds into the budget that would allow so it's going to be part of their budget essentially, and so we're asking them to hire it out of the total funds they receive, um, and there will be ample budget for them to do so.

Okay.

Yeah, I just wanted to note that because it yeah, it will of course it's a big budget, but if um, you know, an evaluate an evaluation of a big project is also a big budget, so just want to acknowledge that.

Um, Commissioner Thomas.

Hi.

Um, so one kind of going back to the review panel.

How many people are you aiming to have on their minimum maximum?

How many commissioners versus non commissioners?

So per the strategic investment plan, we're looking for for every panel we run, we want up to two commissioners.

Um, and for total, we're we would look between between five and eight um panelists.

We don't foresee getting a huge amount of applications for the GBI, um, not nearly as much as the open grants, so it's not going to be as large of a recruitment process or conflict review.

Um, but we are looking for five to eight um professionals in the field or uh commissioners, people with lived experience, um we will have to review for conflicts.

Obviously, if you're applying, can't be a panelist, that sort of thing.

Okay, I appreciate it.

I get that I think I speak for Commissioner Gafari and I when we say the last grant review time was very challenging.

A lot of work, a lot of great applications.

Uh, and then my only other question uh clarification.

Um, so on the program scope requirements says provide optional wraparound services for you know folks who are applying for the program.

Um so obviously folks who host the you know you know guaranteed basic income are going to have to provide it and it's optional for the participants to have to do it.

I'm curious in your research, maybe with Santa Clara, do you know how often those folks access access it?

Oh, like it's optional how many of them actually access through resources that are provided to them.

Do we know?

Um, I don't have a statistic, but from our conversation, it was pretty well used.

Um, they and um part of it is like one-on-one case management, um, especially that goes back to the relationships and the partnerships of how this um this program will be implemented.

Uh, we're really looking for strong partnerships with um, so not only the entity that is administering the program, but also the partners who might have direct access to the participants can build those relationships as well.

Um, so sorry, that's a long-winded answer, but really they were from from what we gathered, the resources were often used, but more so when there were strong partnerships with specifically the county who is doing the one-on-one case management with the youth.

Okay, I appreciate I just I wanted to make sure that even though it's not gonna be mandated for them that they the people are typically going to access the resource.

I think that's very comforting for programs like this.

So thank you.

Renee, did you want to?

No, it's okay.

I was just gonna add that usually when it comes to the partnership with uh county services.

Obviously, we don't want to, you know, pass off our our foster youth or transition to age use from caseworker to caseworkers, so we usually would try to work with um the case worker that's already assigned to that foster youth because they usually do have a transition age youth case worker that they get when they're past 18 and entering AB12 or something like that, that also works with them through those wraparound services.

Um so that's really where the partnership is important.

Um, yeah.

But just to clarify, you're not necessarily asking applicants to have a joint application with these, or is that what you're saying?

That's the preference, is that they're absolutely the preference and extra points will be awarded for having established MOUs because uh just even looking at enrollment.

If you don't know this is uh personal data that they that the county cannot share with an entity just because they want to work with foster youth.

And so there's various ways that enrollment could happen, and it could be just like optional base, like for example, the entity could say, hey, we're offering this program, can you tell the foster youth to reach out to us if they're interested?

And then it would be on the on the participant to reach out to the program in order to enroll.

But if there is an established MOU, then we could actually, the entity would have more direct access to enroll and implement the program with the participant, and so we are really hoping that there's established MOUs or at least a pathway or some sort of agreement in place or plan to have one.

Um I did just have another comment because I feel like we should even though the GBI or sorry, even though the first RFP process, we learned a lot of lessons in terms of the grant review committee getting through the conflict of interest reviews with that.

Um, even though we anticipate less applicants, I don't think we should approach it with less like just, I don't know, prep preparation, right?

We should be doing all these things ahead of time just because we learned a lesson that you know if we don't get our grant review down, that's gonna delay us by like two to three months.

I mean, this is a program that I think we could all agree is probably one of the most, if not the most important, you know, arguably within this fund, and so just making sure that the wheels are turning and we're doing everything that we can.

So just want to reiterate that, but uh vice chair.

Thank you.

I wanted to kind of piggyback on what Commissioner Thomas said regarding wraparound service, especially being someone who's a financial champion and working in a financial industry.

I want to find out is there a way just because the wraparound services uh, like we say, they can be recommended for the financial counseling piece.

I know that that's been something since we've recommended the GBI um during our time and creating a strategic plan.

Is there a way to make that one stand out a little bit more?

Like is there a way to add a requirement just because as someone who educates youth who are in challenging situations, they talk about knowing how to budget the money that they receive.

So is there a way, and and I don't know just because I'm not working with foster youth on a day-to-day basis?

So I want to make sure that I am adhering to sensitivities and things of that sort.

Not to say funds will be mismanaged, just being a champion of financial wellness as a whole, making sure that they understand with all of the funding that you receive, any any of the monies that you receive, this is how you can manage it, and understanding different resources that are available to them so that they're not going to check cash in places, understanding banks, credit unions, things of that sort.

So I'm trying to figure out is there a way because I see it included as we we want that to be a wraparound service.

Is there a way to make that stand out a little bit more so that that can be a focus that all hundreds applicants who start receiving this stipend that they are enrolled in some type of one-on-one coaching?

I know that the city provides one, and I know whomever is going to receive this RFP, they may have individuals that they work with.

I mean, I could talk about all friends later, but um, I just want to really ensure, especially for that age group that 18 to 24, that that financial wellness and awareness is there for them.

So is there anything that we can do in that particular space?

Yeah, great question.

Um I'll just add the caveat that I'm also not an expert on transitional age foster youth, but the research we did do showed that the um the benefits being optional and the wraparound services being optional was um the best practice for this population.

However, I can see that we we might potentially uplift financial counseling as something that we um want to be, because the way that it's written now, as you saw, is that the uh wraparound services being offered is required.

However, doesn't it state exactly what those wraparound services we want are?

And so maybe we could uplift and say the wraparound services we're offering um must include financial counseling or something along those sorts, so at least we know that that is an option being offered.

Um but open to other feedback if you all feel that wraparound services should be a requirement for I don't know.

So that's I but excuse me.

Essentially the research showed that wraparound services should be optional, and so that's why we went that path.

Um but open to hearing from the commission is if you think that should be optional.

Commissioner Carverz.

Um yeah, I appreciate the um the sort of options that you laid out, Julian.

Um, I agree about you know the value added of offering, you know, financial counseling and and whatnot.

I would I would encourage us if we want to like look at this in more detail to yeah, get some folks in front of us um who are more familiar with like the literature and and best practice here because my limited reading of the literature is that the unconditional nature of the guaranteed basic income outweighs the requirements of the wraparound services.

Um, you know, lifting up yeah, especially this population's agency and choice um sort of outweighs then some of the requirements, and that when when the services are offered, there's sounds like yeah, high uptake rates, but um I like the idea of potentially yeah, ensuring that there is specific like specific wraparound services offered, but I um yeah, I would encourage us to get others if we want to have a deeper conversation about this, I would encourage us to get some folks in the room that can speak to the unconditional the value of the unconditional nature of the GBI.

Commissioner Thomas.

Yeah, I want to add, I I I still stand by the logic around making sure it's optional.

Um I understand where the vice share is coming from completely, but I also think that if if I'm putting myself in any of these, you know, folks' shoes, I'm thinking if you know they have odd working hours, right?

Where do you squeeze in the time for required counseling or required wraparound services, right?

Are those services gonna be provided on the weekend or are they only going to be happening nine to five when you're working, right?

Um these are also folks typically that you know may not always have access to the most consistent housing.

Um so where you also gain these resources while you're also trying to look for housing, right?

What hopefully one of the services we're providing for them is housing, right?

And they can have access to someone who's gonna help them find it.

But I also think that it's it's a little difficult, you know, if you are kind of these transition age youth to be required and mandated to go to certain trainings, certain days, certain times, where the very bare minimum you're just trying to find a job, get your education, etc.

So I think it's I'm thinking of a clear nine to five schedule and what is feasible in that kind of night that time frame.

So I understand why it is optional.

So I I I I also agree with uh Commissioner Carver Swartz that maybe our next commission meeting just having someone kind of come in and talk to us about this work and kind of do a two-minute presentation on this.

I don't think any of us are too much of experts on this, um, or even our community folks who are typically seen as a memo is every couple months.

Maybe they want to do presentation on it as well.

Um I definitely would like to hear more from folks in the community between this work though.

Um I do just want to be careful of uh, you know, the requests that we're making because I don't want it to delay the process.

So I don't think we're asking for the process to be delayed, just to clarify.

Thank you.

We do not need that.

Uh please, you know, continue with the process.

Um, but uh, you know, barring that everything goes smoothly, I think it would be appropriate for us to have some sort of presentation uh on you know what the program would actually look like if that comes until after the award the grant is awarded, and you know, the person would then come in and give us a presentation on what their implementation would look like.

I think that would be appropriate, but let's not delay the process any further.

Vice Chair.

I agree, and I I don't want to delay the process at all.

I did want to ask, is there a way can we put the timeline back up again?

Yeah, if if we can put the presentation, thank you.

I wanted to make sure I took a picture of that myself to have that.

Um, and while we're getting um the timeline up, are there some, and you may have mentioned this, it's just some time has passed and we've been talking, um, just because I know with the timeline of things, we had a lot of learning lessons with the last RFP.

So with this one um with the release date being December 5th and all of the different things that we have there, what are the things that we're putting in place now so that we don't delay the process, even though knowing this particular one should render less applicants, but are there things that we're putting in place to make sure that we stay on the timeline to make sure that the program year in it begins in July?

Yeah, so uh first I'll just say that I padded this timeline per previous commission feedback.

So we have more than six months, which is more than we had with a much larger RFP process.

Um I'm confident that we can get out the NOFO within the first few weeks of December.

Um we we will be beginning recruitment.

Um typically with a large RFP, we might have started earlier, but I'm confident we can get five to eight panelists that will pass conflict review through experience.

I'm confident in that.

Um we've already really set everything into motion.

We have almost a final draft, we just need to get final approvals, and then it needs to be uploaded into GMS.

We're working around vacation with the departments that work with GMS.

Um, but everything in this timeline, it's still tentative, so it might not be on December 5th, but I'm confident that we can meet that uh July 1st contract date.

All right.

So before we actually move to the next item, I'm gonna call um on the clerk to for us to do public comment matters not on the agenda.

Before we go to the next item.

Thank you, Chair.

We have four speaker slips for matters not on the agenda.

Um our first speaker is April Hottest.

Um it's a little bit about all of this, but I want to thank you all.

Um I'm with the Sacramento Literacy Foundation.

We're one of the grantees of the children's fund, and we're really grateful for that.

I want to say that 22% of kids in foster care can read, and the other 78% can't.

So, having some assistance for those applications is gonna be critically important because they can't read, so they won't be able to apply.

So you're gonna miss a lot of folks.

But I want to just say that um first, thank you.

Um, we want to support youth forward, they're doing a great job.

We're a small CBO, we received a large grant, and what we're gonna do is put books in the hands of kids who are going to well space during their wellness visit, which is gonna grab a wide swath of the kids that you're talking about.

I want to thank you in particular for recognizing that reading is a mental health issue and uh it really is a uh a violence mitigation issue.

Kids who can't read are frustrated in classrooms, create behavioral problems, become adults who on the streets are very frustrated, create legal problems, and end up in jail a great deal, just out of being frustrated.

If you can't participate, you can't if you can't read, you can't participate.

So I just want to thank you all for recognizing all that.

And I think my time, oh my time is fine.

Anyway, that's it.

That's all I really have for all that, but I want to you know help you guys keep your head on all of that.

How much reading is underneath all of this?

And I want to say this is a great grant.

You guys did a great job with the first cycle, and I'll look forward to supporting the second one.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Anna.

Good morning, hello, hello, hello.

My name is Anatol Kolo, and I'm here speaking on behalf of SATKIS First and Youth Forward.

First, we just want to say thank you for all of your dedication and your hard work as being commission members.

We also want to call for a balance and fairness in how the children's fund dollars are allocated.

And we wanted to bring up that while the highest score wins model may appear objective, it can also unintentionally leave key communities behind or lead to overinvestments in some areas while others, like native youth and violence prevention receive much less support than needed.

We recognize that violence prevention was funded in the first go around, but not to the level that many of those working in these spaces have hoped for.

And our coalition recommends that adopting a more balanced structure for allocating funds such as granting by goal area or reviewing for duplication would be most beneficial.

And this approach would also help to ensure that every child in our city has the chance to benefit to have these programs being available to them.

Especially important for our grassroots organizations, which many of them you see in this crowd too today.

We're here with some of our coalition members that you've already heard from and that you will be hearing from today.

And yeah, a lot of our folks are the boots on the ground, grassroots folks.

And so I want to just close with this quote if I can.

Equity doesn't just happen by accident, it happens by design.

And so we want to uplift that.

Let's design a process that truly reflects the diversity and promise that Sacramento children and youth so that all of our young people can have the opportunity to grow in a city that wholeheartedly invests in their voices.

Thank you all, and thank you for reviewing that letter that we emailed to you all too.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Tona.

Hello, Commission, my name is Tara Miranda.

I'm a longtime resident of El Paso Heights, Narsac, and a longtime community member here in our tribal community.

As we know, a lot of our communities here in Sacramento are in need, but tribal youth and tribal communities are the last to be seen or to even be spoken about in any of these situations.

And so as we move forward in the next steps and these next um the work that you guys are doing, I ask that you continue to uplift those voices.

Our tribal partners here with Youth Forward, you know, we have Native Sister Circle, Native Dads, Indigenous Healing Collaborative, Fifth Direction.

A lot of these pieces and these communities don't get funding, not at the level of the communities that they serve.

And so I just ask that we continue to uplift those voices, continue to, you know, be their voice that they're not here, and that they've worked really hard to help with the children's fund to help with the commission to help with the this fund that you guys are here supporting.

And so I just thank you guys all, and also for the North area, it's not just one org that's out there.

There are many different boots on the ground community organizations that have not received funding.

And when you're looking at different groups like the Polynesian community, Samoan, the Tongans, Natives, Chicano, they go underrepresented and underfunded in many of these programs that are funded by the city.

So I just ask that you also upload that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our final speaker is Clarissa.

I'm kind of short.

Um I wrote my comments.

Uh, hi, I'm Buenos Diaz, my pronouns she are.

Uh, my name is Clarissa Lawardi.

I'm the executive director of the California Center for Civic Participation.

We go by Cal Center for short.

I stand here with SACKIDS First Coalition and Youth Forward.

So I want to thank you for your service, you know, serving on this commission and for the work that you do, your investment with uh investing in Sacramento's youth.

Uh, the first funding around uh we applied under the violence prevention, and uh I just wanted to bring attention again to the like how those funds were allocated.

17.9 million went to 24 programs and projects.

Out of all of those, only about a quarter or five were grassroots.

Or I so I want to bring attention to the fact that uh there are smaller organizations, kind of like Tona mentioned, boots on the ground, that maybe don't meet a certain so I would be interested to know what is the difference between a CBO versus a grassroots, or if you're looking at reserving some funds for smaller organizations, and across the five funding goals, 50% went to uh mental health, and while that's very important, um, the remaining four goals had to share the other half.

So the highest score process, while well intentioned, can unintentionally reinforce inequities instead of correcting them, and we urge the commission to consider allocating uh by funding goal area.

So each goal area received receives a fair share in organizations can compete within their goal, not across all five.

We recommend reviewing duplication of um similar projects and prior prioritizing equity and innovation by leveling the playing field for grassroots, native-led organizations and smaller organizations that bring deeper um authentic connection to the communities and that are kind of changing the model of traditional models do not center youth voices.

They're created in a room by adults, and they're not bringing youth voices to the mix.

Uh Cal Center, though we're 40 years old, we have restructured completely.

And um, I see my time is up.

But I invite you to look.

Uh we want youth programs that are led by youth.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I just feel like that's a two chat.

She's gonna introduce the MC.

Oh, I'm looking for the NST.

Okay.

We have we have to take we have to take a break.

Yeah, we have to take a break.

Yeah, yeah, five minutes.

Can we motion for a five minute recess?

We're down on quorum.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Okay.

Our live video stream.

Hi everybody, before you jump into your next item, I just wanted to take a minute to introduce my colleague Harveen Gill.

Um, beginning next year, Harveen is gonna be your legal counsel.

You will be done with me, you'll get a fresh face.

Um, when I originally started working with you guys, it was during my colleague Kurt was going on paternity leave, and I was here for like a two-month stint.

Uh, obviously that has evolved, and you've been stuck with me for a little bit more than two months.

But Harveen uh also works with Yipse in youth programming, and so she's gonna be taking over.

So I just wanted to introduce her and let you know when I'm not sitting here next at your February meeting, you'll see Harveen.

So, thank you.

Hello.

Yeah, I'm very excited to make you we're gonna work you.

Thank you.

We definitely look forward to that.

But we will miss you, city attorney.

All right.

I'll still be around and as a resource to Harvey.

Okay.

We'll come find you then.

Um Commissioner Thomas.

Uh yeah, I wanted to thank the folks in the audience for their words.

I was telling some folks there, they've been sending memos for the past like two years for us, and I read every single one of them.

Um I think the feedback is is duly warranted.

Um, you know, I I'm a big mental health advocate.

You know, Lillian here is a therapist, and I'm grateful to see how much of mental health has been funded, but then I also look at substance abuse as the only one org that was rewarded for it, right?

And I I I'm looking at this in mental health, definitely had an over-presentation in a lot of ways here.

I think for the other four fun goals, it makes them pleasant for folks who are like, you know, what's happening here.

Um I think the conversation about, you know, was it maybe we should 20% for each fun goal was definitely something we can definitely entertain the kind of the next go around.

Um I even know there was a whole conversation about how much, you know, was it was the city was like 50 50, 50 of it should go to CBOs and the 50 of it should go to public entities, and there's way more CBOs and public entities that applied, and that type of stuff we are absolutely thinking about here in this process.

Um I think when we talk about you know next year and the year after and kind of reevaluating what we're gonna do here, um I think these conversations about how we move forward.

Um, very, very important.

So that's one.

Um two, so I'm very curious.

Folks had mentioned in their memo about you know the lack of kind of Native American indigenous representation of our grantees, and then they also mentioned the Prop 209 affirmative action, etc.

So I'm curious like how how do we address that?

Like, is there a way to address that?

Um, can we really call out like the you know certain ethnicities and races?

Um, also recognize the fact that our indigenous population is very very underrepresented in a lot of this facet of policy making and youth funding.

So I guess how do we as folks in kind of the public sphere kind of under prop two and I already address that type of stuff.

And I am looking at our lovely lawyer over there, actually.

So I'm if you can address that, be great.

Yeah, so uh it's an excellent question.

It is complicated, but um, if you have data that supports um the historic underrepresentation, then based on that data you can make decisions um and be insulated from like a a legal challenge if you are basing those decisions on uh history of underrepresentation.

And I know that we all know fundamentally that the that you know the data is there, it's just a matter of getting it collected in before you to have it be a basis for decision making.

I'm not by saying we need data, I'm not suggesting the data isn't there.

I'm just saying we need it to be part of um part of your decision making.

And then also, you know, someone had mentioned in the audience about kind of I guess like grassroots versus CBO, and I was wondering if we can kind of have a reiteration of that if the chair will like to kind of take the time to do that.

I know that was something that was brought up in the public comment.

Yeah, is that something that the city can speak to?

Or either or I mean, yeah.

Sorry, um, just before we get too far afield from our agenda, right?

With Brown Act restrictions, um if you can maybe talk about that during commissioner ideas and comments at the end of the meeting, as opposed because it's a little bit.

Not sure that that is part of our agenda items to if we're getting into that level of detail.

Does that make sense?

I mean, I don't know how much detail has to be done.

I think it was just folks are like grassroots versus CBO, like how are we just defining that?

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

If you're not wanting to talk about like future steps and how we change that, I thought I didn't know where we were going.

No, no.

Yeah.

So I think this um I can speak to what it was in the past RFP, but this is sort of something that you could build into any edits you wanted in the strategic investment plan about how you define that.

Um we had previously defined it as grassroots being any organization with the organizational budget at 200,000 dollars or below.

I think part of our lessons learned was that we felt that threshold was too low.

Um, and so that was the definition used in the last round of funding.

So I would encourage you all to revisit that during 2026 when we start looking at potential edits to the strategic investment plan um and making recommendations to the city on how we might adjust that definition and threshold.

Profusely taking notes.

Um did you want to comment on this too?

I know we want to Eddie, it is gonna be quick.

Um, I had it and Danna lost it.

Uh Jacob Redberg, Office of the City Clerk.

We do have to move through the agenda order.

I mean, we can reorder the items at the discretion of the chair.

Like we took public comment matters not on the agenda um just before the break there.

Uh, but the next part of the agenda is item five.

However, uh chair can move commissioner comments ideas and questions to we can hear those now if at the chair's discretion, or else we will need to move to item five.

Are we good to move forward?

Um so we're gonna move forward with item number five.

So it's item number two on here.

Um Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission draft community engagement plan.

That's okay.

We could get a projector here, so attached to this item, we included a draft community engagement plan.

So really this the idea is that chair and vice chair wanted to bring an item forward to discuss plans for future commission community engagement.

To have something for you all to react to.

I created a draft community engagement plan.

This is a no way set in stone.

This is mostly just, as we recall part of our 2024 commission plan, we had several goals, and one of them was to create a community engagement plan to help us guide future community engagement for the commission.

And so I've put this here, it's also attached to your item, but I don't plan to present it.

I plan to hand it off to you all to uh facilitate your own discussion.

Vice Chair.

No, you can you can communicate with your committee outside of this, you do not need to establish meetings.

If you establish them here, it'd be like a standing meeting.

So you'd actually don't want to establish a schedule during the meeting.

Got it.

All right, good deal.

All right, so with the information, and thank you so much, Julie, for uh putting this together to the commission.

We have certain areas that we put down in our SIF that we would do in our community engagement and what we would do.

And I know that we've mentioned before about uh conducting town halls, listening sessions, what have you, right?

And we can rename those as we go forward, but I believe as a commission, Chair and I, we did want to know how does everyone feel about us doing an actual town hall andor listening session, a part of our community engagement plan.

Not that these are the ones that we're gonna do right now.

Julie has um some drafted out, but how do we feel about about doing listening and our town hall meetings?

Sorry, Vice Chair.

I'll just chime in because um I think probably from that conversation that we had.

One thing that sounds out to me as like seems very purposeful in terms of how the commission could engage with grantees would be something like site visits.

I like that idea.

Um we could you know obviously discuss that here if folks are interested.

Um in terms of the town halls, I think I would want I actually would want that to for us as a committee to identify what the purpose of that would be and like what information we would actually be sharing, um, just because you know, I sh I shared previously that I wouldn't just want to create an event just to do an event.

Um so you know, folks are welcome to chime in or but site site visits are definitely of interest, um, and in terms of a town hall, I'm not sure, at least on my end, like I would want to discuss like what the purpose of that would be or like goal.

Yeah.

Commissioner Gafari.

Hi, yes, and just to update everybody, um, Gina and I are going to be co-chairs for this committee.

Um, so thank you, Gina, for helping share the weight.

Um, so yeah, I think uh I really like the idea of intentionality around town halls.

Um, uh being that we did have good attendance at um at the community engagement events that we had last year.

Um it is good to know that you know people do want to participate.

So I do think it's important, however, um, the ones that we do have, let's go at it with intentionality, and then maybe have you know less, you know, with more people.

Um, and then um, and I also like the idea of site visits too.

Um, but it we would have to think about like how to go about that, and um would it be also were you thinking all sites, or would it be just certain ones or I don't do you want to speak to that, Julia?

I know we haven't had like a robust conversation about it really.

I mean, the questions that you're asking are really great because I hadn't even thought of like how many do we do all which commission you know commissioners sign up for them, like what would the process of doing that be.

Yeah, and so as part of um over site sacramental children's fund, and actually in the whole youth development division, we do site visits of grantees.

So that's part of our normal process.

Um, and in our current communications with grantees, we've um already been sort of, you know, front loading the idea that we're going to be doing these site visits and that we would like to bring one to two commissioners along.

Obviously, we can't bring a quorum of commissioners.

Um, and the way that we're approaching it is also giving them the opportunity to offer, like, hey, this is this really great act event that because there's certain activities and events that are great for site visits and other days that might not be, you know, you're not seeing the full program, for example.

So basically we're asking them to provide us with any ideas about when they might like us to visit.

Um, and if they don't have that, then we will just schedule one with each grantee throughout the life of the cycle or throughout the cycle of the grant.

So over the 3.5 years, um, we'll visit everybody.

We're hoping to visit everybody within the first grant term.

We don't know that that might happen.

And so what we could do is as we start to get a schedule of events, um, we could um invite all of you, and it would be up to you to sign up with one to two commissioners for site visit, or if you have one that you particularly want to go to, let us know and we'll try to facilitate that process for you.

But essentially we'll be scheduling them and inviting you all.

I think it might be, thank you, Julie.

I think it might be um a good idea to um start with, and this is just me thinking right now start with the site visits.

That way, once we have these community engagement listening sessions or town halls, um, we have information to provide because um, you know, the took it took a certain amount of time for you know things to get moving.

Um, so you know, I really want to be able to be in a position where we're providing the community, you know, the results of what we're doing, um, or at least what we're seeing, and and um what these um you know great programs are providing and how this money is being used.

So just some thoughts.

Vice chair.

I want to apologize and clarify uh what I was first saying just because I was gonna go through a list of different things and didn't want everyone to believe that listening sessions was the only thing that I was thinking that we should do um just because uh chair and I did to speak about site visits.

Um in my mind, hope this is just what I'm thinking holistically, um, we can do something on a quarterly basis.

Um that could be once a quarter, it can be once every other quarter, however, we decide to do that, which could include if we do some type of listening session.

The reason why I feel like that would be good is just because we've heard a lot about how the funding of each fund goes what that looked like and how the public received that.

So if we have the public's input as to we're looking at updating our SIP, how do you think that we should do this?

If we have if we give the public and we give CBOs the opportunity to tell us what it is that they think take all of those ideas, we have something as a commission that we can come back to and say, Well, this is what the public is saying.

Let's hear exactly what the youth are saying.

So if that's something that involves what we have a youth section and have the CBOs talk so that way we can understand what they have and bring it back, just like how we did when we first started and we had the tablets out, and we were we were writing down our different thoughts and things of that sort.

So I think something like that could be beneficial.

The site visits I think are great, of course.

Um picture ops, we're here with this organization that received funding for the children's fund, that could be good social media push and things of that sort.

Um, just wanted to just kind of clarify what my thoughts was.

My next thing that I was gonna move to was is there a way that we can spotlight CBOs that didn't receive funding?

I believe that we've heard today um that there are quite a bit of CBOs with boots on the ground that are helping lots of our youth out here in in our community.

Is there a way that we can do something that does spotlight them, whether that's like a social media campaign of some sort or video?

I don't I don't know exactly what all funding or what all uh things we have available to us um regarding you know doing this, but just thought that it would be a good idea.

Thank you.

Commissioner Thomas.

Um yeah, I just want to say I like the idea of site visits.

Um, I think definitely aiming for folks to be able to.

I mean, my goal if and if we did that would be to kind of see every single fungal in action, at least one of each, and only have one of substance abuse, which is a little telling.

Um so I think that's definitely my first thought.

I think when it came to the town hall thing, I don't think I don't think it was a bad idea.

I just think if folks have already gotten the money, um they're not going to come, and if folks haven't gotten any money, they probably still don't want to come.

It's always kind of my concern about town halls, was just the reach and the folks who want to show up there.

Um I think a social media push is actually a pretty decent idea.

Um I think my only concern is I wouldn't want us to I'm trying to find the right way to frame this.

I don't want us, I'm gonna sit on my word on that one actually.

I have to sit on my wording for that last one.

Yeah, um, I think just the comments that I have on that is um I I mean I think we did a great we definitely did a great job with your leadership too last year, uh Vice Chair and Commissioner Gafari and everyone that was involved in the town halls.

I you know, we hit out a part, we had had great turnout for those events.

Um so you know, and you listed out for some reason, I don't know who who created the document that we got.

Was that you, Julie, or was that you?

Okay, got it.

Because I when I was looking at the document for the communication plan, I was like, oh, is this something that you all are planning to do already?

No, this is like based on what we talked about, and then you drafted this.

Okay, got it, got it.

Okay, so um I'm uh I'm a fan of the site visits.

I like that idea that was brought up in you know, a meet a meeting in the past.

Um, I think we should probably hold off on the town halls for now until we like probably can convene as a smaller group and really kind of identify what what the purpose of that would be.

Um, because I think there are varying opinions about like, you know, what would what kind of information would we even share?

But something that is lingering in the background is the uh draft redrafting of the strategic investment plan.

So as vice chair mentioned, if we do want to engage community in some sort of process around that, um, that may be also appropriate community engagement for us to lead on um with the support of city staff.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think we should hold off on trying to plan something big and like under deliver for community.

Um Commissioner Cravert Swartz.

Um yeah, I agree with that.

Um what else been said about the the town halls and and needing to have um, you know, a purpose and and be clear about the intention there.

Um I guess the other thing, and I in theory I I like the idea of site visits, so I'd love to see um and be able to spotlight what folks are were doing um in their own space and and ask go to them.

Um I will say is as someone who just did a site visit with a state funder last week.

Um sometimes, depending on what it's especially if if these are organized by the city, um, they can feel very um weighty, like this is your funder coming to look at what you're doing.

And so I think you know, um, we just want to be conscious of you know the weight that's placed on orgs when you have your funder coming to kind of check out what you're doing.

And so we you know, we just want to I think probably balance that out and um and whatnot.

Um, and then I I was I was also seeing in this um in the memo the um the or the the row about the resource fair idea and we haven't quite talked about that yet, but that also that feels potentially more um like in service of maybe what the orgs are doing and in service of the wider community.

So I'm I don't know if anyone um who's part of the subcommittee wants to speak a little bit more to the ideas around the resource fair as well.

I'd love to hear that too.

Vice chair.

Thank you for bringing that back up because definitely um the resource fair is um the big one.

Um before as when we first mentioned the resource fair, would love to have something.

I don't know how we do this in a fun way where it doesn't have to be long drawn out, but there was a big mention about uh grant writers and the grants the emerging and grassroots organizations not having funding for to get grand w grant writers or like best tips like so if we had something along those lines so we're still developing what the idea is going to look like.

As long as we know that the commission is good with us doing a resource fair as we're in our smaller group as a committee we can get that together.

I did want to kind of like go back to when you said site business.

So I've never did site business before so I was thinking like oh this could be fun and we can interview hey this is such and such and you know I don't know if that's something that we could do but I would love for it to be more lighter because I don't want it to be like a real serious type but I know it's serious because it's the funder but I would want us to find a way to where it's not as serious.

So um just for clarification and to move us along um on the community engagement the commission is good with us starting off with site visits us figuring out for a listening session and or feedback regarding updating the SIP.

We're okay with that once we have a plan around what we're gonna present then the resource fair for community engagement okay because we all gotta agree here because we're not gonna all be in a committee together.

Yeah for the resource fair is it the grantees or is it is it bringing the grantees to share what their programs are to the general public or is it resources for the grantees so I mean in I initially I had asked if we can do a resource fair with those who didn't get funding.

Oh interesting okay.

Because it because my thinking around that was you have um we've heard a lot of people which they're educating me every single day a lot of CBOs where it may seem like they're operating in silos where people aren't aware of what their actual services are so what is something oh or a way that we can uplift those organizations that didn't get the grant funding so that other people are aware of them just in case other businesses are having grants and things of that sort how do we get them out there and how do are they aware of each other's um you know services so how do they work together?

So but I don't know I mean that's just that's just me.

That's my thoughts.

I think those are good places to start.

Those are three good places to start and then in terms of the site visits we can maybe work with you all Julie and Renee about planning that out and setting a calendar up for that so that commissioners can plug in based on their availability.

Yeah I would just note that um you know I probably wouldn't we won't probably start site visits until um the third quarter, fourth quarter um just to let these programs start starting to get going, start to build relationships with them.

And we'll also be starting community of practice meetings um next year.

So maybe commissioners want to spotlight in a couple of those again we're still launching everything so you know just getting a couple quarters under our belt is really gonna help I think and be more beneficial for people um if once we start those um meetings and site visits a little later into the grand term.

Yeah.

Commissioner Thomas so the the point I was wasn't sure if it was kosher earlier but kind of picking back off of Commissioner Carpet's words about you know okay site visits to people who we've funded and it's kind of feeling weighty like oh you know are the people funded us my concern was spotlighting folks who did not get the funding and them thinking that could possibly help down the line for the next cycle that was also my concern is I'm I I want to be when you're not when folks are applying for funding that is very needed in this time and they're not getting it you know you want to make sure the relationship is built before kind of push them out on social media.

I think that was my concern about who are not funding and our relationship with them as folks in this community as a city as funders.

So that was kind of what my point was cautious about so I really appreciate you on the other side of that.

So that was kind of where I was tempered on I leave it there.

Commissioner Craver Sports.

Yeah, just back to the resource fair piece real quick.

Thanks for yeah, just talking that through a little bit, um, and happy to yeah, just learn more once once the ad hoc group talks more.

Um the one piece I will say uh I know having read and now serving on that review committee for the um evaluators part of their scope, right?

Is doing some of that training and technical assistance piece, and so I wonder as we you know can continue to just kind of brainstorm around the resource fair and if it is directed at folks who maybe didn't get funded last time and are looking for support there, we may want to just consider how to collaborate or synergize with that evaluation partner who also I think has some of that built into their scope.

Commissioner Gafari.

And I also just want to second uh what's being said about um just being we want to be supportive without being misleading in terms of um you know where the future uh money goes and with grantees and um uh we want to engage the community and we want to see the programs that weren't selected and and what they're doing, and um, but again, um we have our process and I would really dislike if we were misleading about create building certain relationships with CBOs uh that ended up or other programs that ended up um you know not being selected, so just to keep that in mind.

I'm just gonna jump in really quick because I know the uh smaller committee will will flesh this out, and I don't want you to do uh some work that in the end, you know, is not gonna come to fruition, but just as you all are having these conversations, us in the background, we'll make sure that uh we're very clear on what we can utilize the funds for.

Um I'm unsure if we can utilize them to either pay for a trainer or you know use a resource uh for people that have not been funded by children's fund.

Not to say that that's a great idea in general for our grant processes uh at the city level.

Um we also have our youth development team, we have OID, you know, arts and culture.

So I think this is just good for us to know that um that's an idea that's out there.

Maybe we don't utilize children's fund for those opportunities, but we in some way share resources um to the broader community and utilize our our lists of people that do not get funded from children's fund to provide them some of those resources.

So thank you for bringing that up because it'll it'll be part of a larger discussion.

Can I just reply for you?

Thank you so much for that.

Um the one thing that I will say, because of course I don't want us to use funding for that, and like I say, y'all, just opinionated Jane over here, that's it.

Um I was thinking, so if we can't do that, so if we say we did do a resource fair with um our grantees who did receive funding, is there a way like the grant writing just stands out to me?

Um I have a grant writer of she's top notch fundraiser, raises millions of dollars.

Can I bring in someone?

And someone can can they do it volunteer if we did add like some type of session where she's able to answer questions, we can make it a panel or something like that.

If we decided to do something like that, is that possible?

I would recommend you flesh out completely what each of the components of your community engagement would be with the ad hoc committee, and then bring it back to um the larger commission, and we'll be in discussion with staff to hopefully answer some of those questions for you.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we're gonna be moving on to the next item.

Do you think it says that you're saying do I say that?

Or do you say that?

Why does it say clear?

The next item is member comments, ideas, questions, and meeting conference report.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

I do.

I have a couple of comments.

Um okay, so barring that this is our last meeting of the year and we meet in February.

Um just a couple of things that I wanted to bring up.

So I'm I didn't see any indication that we would be doing any more joint meetings with the youth commission, but I do want to bring that up because to the commission because if it is of interest to you all to have another joint meeting, or if there's you know, um I would like to.

Um, and the purpose of that being reviewing all of these, I don't know to what extent they've also been reviewing similar materials that we do, given that you know we also want their input.

Uh but is that a possibility or is there interest?

Uh possibility with you know a clear purpose and direction.

Um I think for you all to figure that out would probably be be first, and I assume it would be as we are looking at making updates to strategic investment plan.

Maybe we do do a joint meeting.

We'll just have to check and see what they have on their um, you know, meetings for the next year, maybe the year after, you know.

And I saw Sarah here, is Sarah still in charge in charge of Sarah actually is in a new position, and so um, but we still work directly with Sacramento Youth Commission.

Okay.

Yeah, just I just wanted to quickly comment that we do regularly present to the Sacramento Youth Commission and we'll be going in December uh to provide them another implementation update.

Okay, I would like us for us to consider having a joint meeting with them on one of our off months because we're gonna meet every other month.

So they meet on the first Mondays of the month in the evenings.

So I would like us to consider that.

And are you writing that down, Jake?

Uh, being notated.

Okay, thank you.

We'll add it to the follow-up blog.

That would be for us to work with clerks.

Yeah, and I agree, Renee.

I think that you know, having a clear purpose for that would be important, and um that brings me to my next question, which is the process of editing the strategic investment plan.

How does the city envision that um with our commission and then bringing to that us meeting with the youth commission as a part of that?

We'll add that to the follow-up blog as well.

Okay, um, and then my third item on related to the editing of the strategic investment plan was that I did want to uh bring back the idea of having an ad hoc specifically for that.

Um, I don't want to establish that today because I know that uh ad hocs are supposed to be temporary, and I think we talked about the lifeline of sorry, the lifespan of an ad hoc is like a year or something like that.

Yes, one year.

Okay, um, so yeah, just want to bring that up as like in the background because next year I believe is the year we should be talking about drafting the SIP.

We probably want more than five people at the meeting and talk about.

Yeah, oh yeah, and then the other thing I want to bring up it's for folks in the audience too, and folks not to assume people watch our meetings, uh, but if you're watching out there, we do have two open seats.

Uh the mayoral seat is open, so anyone within the city living within the city limits can apply to that.

Um, and then we have district two, which is Del Paso, Art and Arcade, um, Hagenwood.

I might be missing some specific neighborhoods, but um District 2, Roger Dickinson's seat appointee C is also open.

So apply on the city uh website and hopefully someone will reach back out to you.

Uh boards.city of sacramento.org.

Thank you, Jacob.

Um, I don't have to live in a specific issue, right?

Uh correct.

They don't have to live in the specific district to uh be appointed by that uh council member.

Correct, but just generally the commission council members prefer people to live in their district with reason, right?

You know, you want somebody that we just think they are for a minute, so yeah, but the mayoral seat is open, and that one is anyone who lives in the city.

Okay.

Yeah.

Vice Chair.

I just wanted to say um I had a couple of things.

I had the brain think earlier today.

First, I just wanted to just say just thank you to city staff, of course, um attorney Gore, um, everyone who does all of the helping um with the Sacramento Children's Fund just because we've been doing a lot, and um just wanted to thank the commission just for your wealth of knowledge and all of the the things that y'all do um to the public.

I wanted to say um in hearing everyone and in their comments and feedback regarding the actual strategic investment plan, you know, thinking back during that time.

Um the commission, I could just remember us being so eager and wanting to hear not only from youth voice here from CBOs and us being so eager to make sure that we created like the perfect plan, but understanding, you know, we will never create something that's perfect that everyone's going to love.

But we're doing our best to make sure that we're listening and we're hearing everyone as they're bringing their feedback in our community engagement.

We're gonna make sure that we're continuing to do that.

And I think that you know, we're doing excellent, you know, going above and beyond, you know, with the things that we're doing with the community engagement that we've rendered throughout the throughout the last year and everything.

So I just wanted to just make the public aware of that that we are listening, we are making sure that we're taking in the feedback, I feel like pretty well, you know, so that way we can know what we need to do next time.

So I just wanted to just highlight that.

I feel like we're probably gonna end by noon today.

If nobody has any other comments, I do just want to circle back on a couple of things.

Um, you know, just we're going to be looking at uh revising the strategic investment plan next year.

Some of the things that have been mentioned in this meeting that I want to bring up again are the 50-50 split that we recommended that we actually recommended 6040, but the council uh ended up uh changing that to 50 50.

Um we have seen already that the number of applications that were for CBOs um just obviously outnumbered, and I think it said the requested amount was seven times the amount that was actually uh available.

So I want us to consider you know, uh a split that is going more towards uh community-based organizations and organizations that you know make up a bulk of the applications that we are getting to meet the need.

I want us to not take likely lightly what uh was mentioned around this letter that we got from youth forward around um native organizations not being represented in this first grant in this first grant award cycle, and if that's something that we have to put in the strategic investment plan, I think we should, um, considering that we just got, you know, from City Attorney Gore, that if we look into data and we make the argument that these groups are underrepresented, then we have to put it in writing in order to bypass some of these uh, you know, legal uh Prop 209, I think it was.

Um so yeah, I don't I don't want us to take that lightly.

I mean, these are groups that have historically been underrepresented that need support, um, and that we need to take a more holistic and equitable approach to how we're looking at granting awards, and I do want us to consider to also in the strategic investment plan putting something in there to recommend the city to not necessarily go with a rank, is it was it rank choice?

Is that what was used?

Was it like highest highest scoring?

Um, and if we need to look into you know data around that as well, that's something that I want us to consider.

Uh, because the reality is that there are smaller grassroots organizations that did score really highly.

Um, but ever you could make the argument that everybody kind of scored highly, right?

There was a bunch of groups that did, right?

And then it ended up being that the top 10, 15 or so, however, were the ones that got the award.

So I just want to make those considerations because as much as I do appreciate and I want to, you know, acknowledge what Vice Chair said.

I think we all did a really great job.

We're doing the best that we can, but we need if we're learning lessons from the past two years that we've been doing this, we actually need to like implement those lessons.

Those aren't lessons that we should just leave, you know, in a paper file somewhere as like we learned this, but we're doing the same thing over and over again.

Um, and to reiterate to you know, just the city staff, like we want to be partners with you all on this.

Like we know that um you guys take a lot of hits for, you know, just how I don't know, I guess bureaucratic or like delayed the process can seem to community when obviously there's a huge need.

Um I, for one, have you know, being a part of this commission have started to understand the process a lot more and like have, you know, definitely given more.

I feel like Grace, because I understand that you all are under a lot of pressure and at the same time i think meeting the moment of pressure with just as much like responsibility of like learning the lessons that we did within the past year to make things better for in the future um is gonna be even more important so yeah I just want to say that it's our you know last meeting of the year and I'm really grateful it's been a long year of lots of lessons and things going on in the world but um I'm glad that we're continuing to move this this process forward uh specifically with the guaranteed income vice chair really quick I was just gonna say I I hear everything that you're saying and the one thing that I what I will say about the folks who did receive funding because we do have representation I believe of everything um from who was funded right the CBO split of course that was a problem I just feel like when we do go into this process again we're gonna have to really get down very strenuous as to what we're saying and what what it is that we want because there is representation in the areas that we want it's just not the amount that we wanted right because there are I believe there's a couple I'm not looking at the list I believe that there were a couple of smaller um organizations that did receive funding and I believe whether mental health was the main it was still like the off like they had a secondary what was that the secondary goal area.

So there's representation from everyone I just think that we really do need to take very serious next time like how strenuous we want it to be do we want 20% to go to um emerge low and emergent are we changing the uh dollar amount of what um emergent andor grassroots looks like do we want specifics for a funding goal area because I think that we really need to make that clear thank you vice chair commissioner kafari yeah I just want to start off by saying that you know I just I love that we can all be friends here through all of this but are you saying that you want to bring up the split conversation again Monica?

Oh yeah we're definitely talking about as long as I'm on this commission I'm gonna be talking about that for sure okay so I'm pretty sure I'm still gonna be on it next year.

All right I just wanted to clarify that that was what was going to be talked about next year and I just I'm hoping that we're you know utilizing our time here um the best we all can and I'm glad that we're advocating for beliefs.

Commissioner Vice Chair did you have an right now or just next year.

Next year oh okay yeah no not right now no yeah bigger conversation um okay well if there are no more comments this concludes today's agenda thank you everyone for your participation your this meeting has been adjourned.

Oh my god