Committee recommends RFP for youth intervention services, asks staff to tighten data and outcome language

The Finance Committee on July 28 recommended that the Common Council approve the 2026 Intervention and Prevention Services request for proposals, with committee direction that city staff strengthen the RFP’s data-collection and outcomes provisions before it returns to council.

Committee members said the RFP needs clearer structure and measurable outcome language to ensure funded programs serve the intended youth and demonstrate impact. “I do feel that the RFP is kind of lacking structure and accountability,” Alder Madison said, and requested that staff add more specific programmatic requirements on demographics, participation and outcome data. Madison also urged that a key outcome—“decrease in incidents of violence or conflict involving participating youth”—be tied to specific measures such as an anonymous self‑report survey and police data.

Members debated whether to refer the RFP to committee for further review. Alder Madison initially moved to re-refer the item to the City‑County Schools Collaborative Committee and to the Finance Committee with return dates; other members questioned whether the Community Resources Committee (the successor to the former Community Services Committee) would be a better forum. Jim O’Keefe, speaking for city staff, said the Community Resources Committee is not yet seated and warned that additional referrals would delay the planned RFP release. “We are on a path now that would have us release this RFP on August 8,” he said, noting that referrals would push the schedule back at least a month.

After discussion Madison withdrew the referral motion and made a substitute motion to recommend approval to council with the caveat that staff amend the RFP sections on data and intended outcomes. The committee recorded a unanimous vote in favor of that recommendation and asked alders to work directly with staff to provide specific language suggestions before the item comes to the Common Council.

Committee members also clarified that the finance committee’s action is a recommendation to council and that any changes to the RFP documents should be versioned in Legistar so that revised documents are traceable.

The committee and staff discussed the RFP’s fiscal note; a member confirmed the committee was not approving budget authority at the meeting but discussing prospective funding levels for planning. Staff said the council has not approved the 2026 budget and that the referenced $2,080,000 figure (not approved at this meeting) was a planning estimate.

The RFP will be brought to the Common Council with committee recommendations and with a staff commitment to tighten language on data collection, participant eligibility and measurable outcome metrics.

Less critical details: Madison said she had shared a fuller set of suggestions by email and had discussed the RFP with Yolanda (city staff) and NPD leadership prior to the meeting; several alders offered to collaborate with Madison and staff on drafting clearer language.