Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rfp Priority Populations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pushes to add independently scored priority‑population criteria to next RFP
Summary
The Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission signaled support for adding a scored priority‑population component to the next RFP, aiming to ensure awards reach youth most impacted by poverty, trauma and violence and directing staff to draft RFP language for commissioner review.
The Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission on June 4 backed a recommendation to make ‘‘priority populations’’ a separately scored element in the next request for proposals (RFP), saying the change would better ensure Measure L dollars reach youth most affected by poverty, trauma and violence.
Commissioners heard a slide presentation from Nicole explaining that the current RFP lists priority populations but keeps that language embedded in program‑design scoring, which can allow applicants to score well on delivery models without demonstrating meaningful reach to the highest‑need youth. "The goal here...is to fund programs that serve youth most impacted by poverty, trauma and violence," Nicole said during the presentation.
Why it matters: Commissioners said applicants have interpreted the current language broadly and suggested the commission needs a clearer, more enforceable way to reward proposals that demonstrate both outreach and measurable engagement with hard‑to‑reach youth. Several commissioners urged operationalizing intersectionality — for example, awarding higher scores to applicants who demonstrate reach across two or more priority domains (e.g., unhoused youth who are also low‑income and LGBTQ+).
City staff cautioned that RFP changes must comply with legal constraints, including limitations under state rules. City Attorney Gill told the commission they must avoid preference criteria that would run afoul of Prop 209, and said staff would work with the ad hoc to craft legally permissible scoring language.
Process and next steps: Commissioners agreed the ad hoc should meet at least twice before the August meeting to produce two to three draft RFP scenarios (sample rubric language and preference‑point options) for staff review. Staff noted a shortened timeline: the city is considering releasing the RFP sooner with the stated goal of distributing funds by July 2027, which increases the need for ad hoc work to finalize scoring language.
What the RFP change could look like: Commissioners discussed options including (1) making priority populations an independently weighted rubric category with required evidence of reach; (2) a tiered scoring scale from general outreach to deep engagement with ‘‘hardest to reach’’ youth; and (3) a demonstrated intersectionality requirement (reach across two or more domains). Staff suggested revising evidence requirements for preference points (for example, more robust proof of service locations or participant data) so preference points are not granted too broadly.
The commission did not adopt final RFP text at the meeting; members asked the ad hoc to return with draft language and scoring options for a future discussion.
