Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sacramento Childrens Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on $17.9 million Sacramento Children’s Fund awards after hour of public testimony; commissioners, staff praised and asked for fixes
Summary
After more than an hour of public testimony on Measure L grant recommendations, the Sacramento City Council voted May 20 to continue final action on Sacramento Children’s Fund awards to its June 10 meeting to allow more review and to respond to community concerns.
Get email alerts on the Sacramento Childrens Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sacramento City Council heard a lengthy presentation May 20 on proposed awards from the Sacramento Children’s Fund (Measure L) and, following extensive public comment, voted to defer final action until the council meeting on June 10.
Renee Caustin, program manager for the Sacramento Children’s Fund, presented the commission's recommendations and reviewed the request‑for‑proposals process, scoring criteria and two funding scenarios staff prepared for council consideration. "The funding available for the first 3.5 years was approximately $17,900,000," Caustin said in the presentation. She described a competitive process: the city received 121 applications requesting about $125 million; staff and a Grant Advisory Review Panel scored and ranked eligible proposals using published criteria. The strategic investment plan that guided the RFP set program goals — mental health and emotional wellness, reducing youth homelessness, preventing and reducing youth substance use, preventing youth violence, and support for ages 0–5 — and required a 50/50 split between community‑based organizations and city/non‑city public entities.
Caustin noted corrections to the packet before presenting: adjustments to certain project descriptions and a corrected SCOE request amount of $724,338.52 (revised from an erroneously listed $1,500,000). She explained the commission recommended Scenario 1 to distribute awards across all five fund goals, include a set‑aside for small and emerging community‑based organizations, and fund 24 applications while preserving the 50/50 community/city split.
Council allowed roughly one hour for public comment. More than 40 people had signed up; the mayor set a one‑hour limit and asked speakers to shorten remarks. Public testimony highlighted competing priorities. Many speakers urged the council to fund mental‑health services for LGBTQ+ youth and to support established youth‑homelessness programs such as Waking the Village and the Creation District. Native and tribal speakers said no Native‑led youth programs were recommended in the two scenarios and urged the council to revisit award decisions to ensure tribal youth and Native organizations are eligible and funded in future cycles.
A number of commenters requested that smaller, grassroots organizations be better supported in future rounds, arguing the RFP and scoring process advantaged organizations with professional grant writers. Several applicants asked for feedback and technical assistance; staff said they would provide individualized debriefs and that lessons learned would be considered in the SIP review scheduled for the commission’s three‑year evaluation.
Councilmembers discussed the packet and public testimony. Vice Mayor Talamantes and Councilmember Vang asked staff for more project descriptions and asked whether the council could use additional equitable‑allocation approaches — for example, focusing funding by social vulnerability index or geography. Several councilmembers said they were not ready to finalize awards without further review; Councilmember Jennings moved to continue the item to the June 10 council meeting for final action, seconded by Vice Mayor Talamantes. The motion passed; the council did not record a roll‑call tally in the audio but the chair called for ayes and stated noes or abstentions none were recorded and one councilmember, Pluckibam, was absent. The item will return to council on June 10 for a final decision.
Caustin said staff will begin contract negotiations with recommended grantees and that the city will also issue a separate RFP for the guaranteed basic income pilot later this summer; staff will provide feedback sessions for unfunded applicants and pursue a third‑party evaluator to support program monitoring and reporting. The commission and staff emphasized the three‑and‑a‑half year contract term and quarterly reporting and performance reviews before subsequent disbursements.
