Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Measure X Phase 2 innovation awards; panel recommendations, $1.962M in grants and public objections on perceived racial imbalance
Summary
The board adopted the County Administrator’s recommendation to fund seven Phase 2 Measure X innovation projects totaling $1,962,455 (including a $12,455 draw from an earlier unallocated balance). The meeting included extensive public comment objecting to the non‑selection of proposals led by or serving African‑American men.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved Measure X Phase 2 Innovation Fund awards on March 25, awarding $1,962,455 to seven proposals recommended by an independent seven‑member review panel.
The board-appointed review panel screened 36 Phase 1 proposals, selected 10 finalists for Phase 2 planning grants, conducted interviews and ranked proposals. One finalist was later judged ineligible because it was an already operating program. The seven recommended grants exceed the $1.95 million made available for Phase 2 by $12,455; the board approved using $12,455 from an unallocated balance from the first round so each recommended project could be funded at the requested level. The recommendation leaves an unallocated balance of about $166,808 in the Innovation Fund.
Panelists said they sought to prioritize proposals that best matched the fund’s stated priorities and demonstrated innovative, scalable approaches; they also recommended full rather than partial awards. The County Administrator presented the panel’s ranking and language the panel suggested to clarify reporting and evaluation requirements.
The decision drew extended public comment. Multiple speakers — including local nonprofit leaders, residents, and advocates — urged the board to fund a NAMI Contra Costa proposal and other projects focused on “lifting up” African‑American males, arguing that community‑led outreach, mentoring, and culturally specific services are missing and urgently needed. Speakers described disproportionate school discipline, incarceration, and health disparities for Black men and boys and called for targeted investment. Several speakers argued that panelists misinterpreted application language or that a scoring process failed to reflect lived‑experience leadership. Board members acknowledged the passion of the speakers and said the selected grants reflect the panel’s evaluation of alignment with fund priorities but also suggested other county avenues — including upcoming equity work and the planned African American wellness hub feasibility report — to pursue broader investments for Black communities.
The board voted 4-0 to adopt the administrator’s recommendations and award the seven grants at the requested amounts. Staff said the remaining unallocated balance could be held to supplement funded projects if needed and that the board may revisit additional support requests (one applicant requested an additional $65,000 after the packet was published). The panel’s ranking, awarded amounts and project descriptions are part of the county record and will be posted to grant documents; staff will manage contracts and required post‑implementation reports.
