Sacramento Children’s Fund Planning and Oversight Commission Regular Meeting – August 6, 2026

The Sacramento Children’s Fund Planning and Oversight Commission met on Thursday, August 6, 2026, at 10:08 AM in the Sacramento City Hall Council Chamber. Chair Eugenia Richardson presided. The meeting included approval of the consent calendar, a review of the Strategic Investment Plan's third year, and discussion of target populations for the next Request for Proposals (RFP). Commissioners heard public testimony and provided direction on refining RFP criteria. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 PM.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Meeting Minutes (File ID 2026-00026): Passed unanimously to approve the June 4, 2026 regular meeting minutes.
• Approval of Follow-Up Log (File ID 2026-00276): Passed unanimously to approve the Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission Follow-Up Log.
• Motion: Moved by Vice Chair Ghafari, seconded by Commissioner Kravitz-Wirtz. All present commissioners voted aye, with Commissioners Ruelas Mares and Thomas absent.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mercedes Parker (California Youth Connection) spoke on the first discussion item (Strategic Investment Plan Review). She cautioned that evaluating community-based organizations on short-term outcomes (30–90 days) is insufficient and emphasized that prevention is a long-term goal.
• Later, during Public Comments on matters not on the agenda, Ms. Parker returned to highlight transportation access for youth as a critical barrier to long-term success (e.g., employment, housing) and suggested the city consider this in future RFPs.

Discussion Items

• Sacramento Children’s Fund Strategic Investment Plan Third Year Review (File ID 2026-01434): Commissioners discussed outcomes and alignment with the five fund goals. Key points included:
  • Commissioner Kravitz-Wirtz shared results from a youth survey showing mental/emotional health as the top priority, followed by violence, homelessness, supporting children and youth, and substance abuse.
  • Commissioners debated prevention levels (primary, secondary, tertiary) and how to better target the most vulnerable youth. Vice Chair Ghafari advocated for giving preference to secondary/tertiary programs, while Commissioner Kravitz-Wirtz cautioned against over-favoring any level due to the existing Strategic Investment Plan (SIP).
  • Commissioner Williams noted that 98% of applicants in the first round received preference points (the minutes state “over 90%”), raising questions about the effectiveness of the current preference system. (Discrepancy: transcript says 98%; minutes say over 90%.)
  • Chair Richardson emphasized the need to address all five fund goals, not just mental health, and called for greater focus on violence, homelessness, and substance abuse.
  • Staff confirmed that current grantees are eligible to reapply for the second funding round, per the SIP.
• Sacramento Children’s Fund Target Populations (File ID 2026-01438): Commissioner Kravitz-Wirtz presented four recommendations from the ad hoc committee:
  1. Separate priority populations into its own scoring category (20 points) distinct from program design (30 points).
  2. Group priority populations into three categories: historically underserved (e.g., race, LGBTQ+, immigration status), youth impacted by poverty/trauma/violence, and youth with co-occurring needs.
  3. Require applicants to serve populations from at least two of the three categories.
  4. Draft new scoring language explicitly asking applicants to describe how they serve priority populations with multiple adversities.
  • Commissioners generally supported the recommendations. Chair Richardson and Vice Chair Ghafari suggested adding a preference point for organizations demonstrating secondary/tertiary prevention or impact metrics. Staff noted that any new preference points must align with the SIP and may require careful design to avoid disadvantaging smaller CBOs.
  • Commissioner Williams proposed simplifying the RFP overall, echoing applicant feedback from the first round about excessive length and complexity.
  • The commission agreed to move forward with the four recommendations and continue refining preference point ideas at the next meeting.

Key Outcomes

• Direction on RFP Revisions: The commission endorsed the four recommendations on priority populations and directed staff to incorporate them into the upcoming RFP.
• Preference Points: No final decision was made. Staff will research permissible options for preference points (e.g., based on prevention level, impact metrics) and provide an analysis by the next meeting.
• Next Steps: Staff will provide additional details on the Seed COI tool and its relationship to priority populations. An evaluation partner is expected to present to the commission later in the fall (likely October or November).
• Future Presentations: The city’s child care coordinator, the guaranteed basic income program (contract began July 1, 2026), and the evaluation partner are scheduled to present at upcoming meetings.
• Next Regular Meeting: October 1, 2026. Commissioners were encouraged to submit further RFP-related feedback to staff by email.
• Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Williams highlighted the Summer at City Hall program and youth concerns about transparency regarding Measure L-funded programs. Commissioner Kravitz-Wirtz suggested lengthening the application window beyond the previous one-month holiday period. Commissioner Green expressed support for site visits and success rate data in scoring.