Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the June 4th, 2026 meeting of the Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission. The time is now 10.07 a.m. The meeting is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll to establish our quorum for today?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioners, if you can please unmute your microphones. Commissioner Volsi is absent. Commissioner Williams? Here. Commissioner Thomas?

Present.

Vice Chair Ghaffari? Present. Commissioner Kravitz-Wertz? Here. Commissioner Rulis-Morais?

Present.

And Chair Richardson?

Here.

Thank you. We have quorum.

All right. I would like to remind members of the public in chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins. You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on. After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips. We will now proceed with today's agenda. Everyone please rise for the opening acknowledgements in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Neeson people, the southern Maidu Valley and Plains, Miwok, Patwin, Wintun peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe, may we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today together today in the act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people, history, contributions, and lives. Thank you. All right. We will be skipping our Pledge of Allegiance, so everyone can please have a seat. All right. Good morning, Commission. Just wanted to say good morning to y'all once again and everyone who is present. Thank you so much for being here today. All right, our first business today is the approval of the consent calendar. Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar today?

Thank you, Chair. We do not have any speaker slips for the consent.

Okay, thank you. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item? All right, seeing that we have none, I will need a motion and a second for us to approve the consent calendar.

Oh. I make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Okay, also saw you in speaker so I didn't know if you wanted to speak just in case. Okay, so we have a motion by Vice Chair.

I'll second.

All right, so we have our motion and second. Let's see. Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Yes, and we'll just do a voice vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstain?

The motion passes. Good deal. All right, we will now proceed to the discussion calendar. Item one, we are talking about our targeted populations. Is there a staff presentation for this? Or a commissioner presentation for this?

Yeah. You can go down to the Diasource Day. It's your choice.

I think I'd prefer to stay up here, if that's good.

We have a clicker.

Where's our presentation?

Thank you.

All right, so as you all know, several of us have been thinking about the priority populations and how to ensure that we are reaching the youth most impacted by poverty, trauma, and violence. And so we put together a very quick slide presentation just to help ground the conversation for all of us. So as we've talked about at the last commission meeting, our intent is likely to suggest potential changes to the RFP rather than to the SIP itself, and so that's what these slides present. So as we all know, the goal here is to, and with the funds, is to fund programs that serve youth most impacted by poverty, trauma, and violence. In the RFP, there's a very clearly defined list of what priority populations are on page 17 for those who happen to have the RFP up in front of you, but more just for reference. There's also in the RFP an explicit expectation that we try to reach youth not otherwise connected to programs or services. And so really the key question I think for us moving forward is are the current structures, the current RFP set up sufficient to ensure that we are in fact reaching these youth? So this really raises an issue, but also a real opportunity for us, I think, as a commission. And so what we have are a clearly defined list of priority populations that's already embedded within the broader scoring categories. this idea is not independently scored as part of the process. And so potentially an implication of that is that how services are delivered are weighted more than who is actually reached. And this can result in programs scoring highly without demonstrating meaningful reach to those most impacted. An additional potential gap is that access to services is referenced in the RFP, but it's not formally operationalized in the scoring or the proposal itself. And so the RFP, like I said earlier, requires reaching those not otherwise connected to programs or services, but there's not a criteria necessarily for what counts as not connected, how to demonstrate this, or how it's evaluated in the scoring, so this really does leave room for a broad interpretation and potentially minimal differentiation across proposals. So here's where we get into a couple of considerations that the ad hoc subcommittee talked through, but really what we're interested in having more discussion as a full commission about. So nothing here is by any means set in stone. This is really just jumping off points for further conversation. So one idea could be to create a dedicated priority population scoring criteria, which is separate from the program design, which is where it is embedded currently, and assigning a meaningful kind of weight or score to that priority populations category. And this would sort of help us evaluate the depth of engagement with priority populations. applicants would probably be required to provide evidence of serving these highest needs subgroups. And we might also, as we'll talk about in a minute, consider intersectionality here. So not just a single priority population category, but sort of groups that cross multiple. So in that vein, we could consider building on existing language that's already in the RFP by requiring demonstrated reach to what some people in the literature and across the field have called crossover youth or multiple service using youth. And these are youth who are facing multiple co-occurring challenges across various life domains. Their needs span several sectors and they often require integrated support. And this would shift the focus from eligible populations to populations facing structural barriers to access. And this is very sort of early on in kind of development and may or may not be doable per se, but one idea to kind of operationalize that in the RFP could be to ask applicants to demonstrate that they are addressing the needs of at least one of the following priority populations from each of the categories in these kind of three domains. These are already the priority categories that are included in the SIPP and in the RFP, but sort of broken down across kind of domains. And so one idea would be like, you can't just say that your, serving children and youth and families who are LGBTQ plus like you have to be serving them those kids who are also Low-income and who are also in families who are unhoused kind of thing. That's the sort of idea with that Another consideration to think about for the RFP is strengthening the idea of scoring and focusing in on youth who aren't currently connected to services, and that would require us to have applicants demonstrate not just general outreach, but specific outreach strategies, things like non-traditional entry points, community-based engagement, trusted messengers, and they have to sort of talk about how they're not just doing the status quo, but really going outside, up and, you know, above and beyond in terms of reaching youth not otherwise connected to services. Similarly, we could move beyond just sort of a binary yes, no, you are reaching these youth or serving priority populations to more of a tiered evaluation and scoring process where, you know, you sort of, you go from sort of a very, or like, generic general access to more targeted to really deep engagement with the quote-unquote hardest to reach youth And and would be scored accordingly and this would potentially help improve some of the reviewer consistency and the precision in funding and And so ultimately, all of these things, the goal here is to really help strengthen not only what we're looking for in the applications, but ensure that we really are identifying who is not being reached and that applicants are demonstrating that they're really able to reach those young people through things like boots on the ground outreach, the use of peer and credible messengers, really community-based entry points, and that they have past success and measurable strategies to reach those disconnected youth. And that's all we got. And then we have some proof that we've done some research to back this up. Commissioner Williams, Ruelas-Marris, anything that I missed that you all want to add from our conversations?

just want to quickly shout you out nicole um or commissioner kravitz words as well as commissioner williams it was such a pleasure to work alongside you all um in preparing sort of the well you prepared the presentation nicole so definitely want to shout you out for that um but just being able to talk through this i know we've had multiple conversations as a commission about you know how we wanted to approach target populations and to be able to see it in this way hopefully you know that brings up a lot of questions and curiosity of like how we can make the next rfp better um but really i mean in in my opinion i think um you know this is the start of the conversation and so as uh doc or dr kravis words commissioner kravis words mentioned really wanting you to all kind of sit with this today and ask questions, have a dialogue about it. But with the understanding that we're We know that the resources are limited. Obviously you wanna have like an abundance mindset, but because the resources are limited for the Sacramento Children's Fund, it's really about how do we maximize the impact of those resources to really reach those kids who wouldn't otherwise be reached. And this is that start of sort of getting more down to the point. And I just also want us to have grace for ourselves. Like we wouldn't have known what the initial funding was gonna look like until it went out, until funding was awarded. And every time we can just get more and more and more close to that goal of reaching those kids that have not been reached by the city services or services in the past.

There we go. First, I just wanted to say, just listening to the presentation, Commissioner Kravis-Wurst, Immediate Past Chair Ruiz-Marris, Commissioner Williams, thank you for putting this together, all of your hard work, your research. Y'all have always been based in research and bringing a lot of great information to the commission. And just want to thank you just for the talents that you bring. and your knowledge that you bring to the Commission so that we can make this informed decision. A lot of great information. I did want to ask, based on your research, your knowledge, and your studies of this, what would be your recommendation to the Commission of the consideration that you think that we should move forward with? I want to hear your recommendation, and of course, we can discuss this item as well, but just wanted to know what your recommendation would be to us through your research.

The one that had the...

Yeah, so I think probably am I good So I think Before talking specifically about some of the specific considerations, I think one of the sort of overarching Rex that we would have we I think it's a we but at least I would I would lift up for the Commission is the idea that we are purposely and intentionally have the priority populations as a scored component within the RFP and within the application process. And then I think where there's a lot of room for discussion in terms of what that actually then looks like in terms of how we're scoring that and what we're scoring on is where this discussion will be really helpful. These are, and we can get into some of probably this slide and maybe some of the others, but I think that's the overarching recommendation, that it's an independently scored piece of the RFP.

Got it. And I want to make sure, and just in case if anybody else took this, I was taking in a lot of information, the considerations were for the recommendation?

Yes, yeah. And to clarify, for the RFP?

The RFP, mm-hmm. And I like that because I like what y'all said regarding closing that gap and having that independently scored and not just showing, oh, we assist this one population, but in addition to we do all of these other things to make sure that it's all wrapped around together, just to make sure that I'm still keeping everything in order. But Commissioner Williams, did you have anything to add, say anything?

I don't think I have anything to add specifically.

I think I'm really curious to hear from the commissioners that did some of the scoring. I'm really curious to hear from those of you who did the scoring and reviewed the grant applications to see what are your thoughts about how this would add to the process.

That was good.

Okay. Vice Chair Ghaffari. Okay, yeah, sorry. What I wanted to say was that, so going back to like the original goal of to reach the most vulnerable youth, I think that that should be our guiding compass through all of this. And I think that what you came up with really touches on, you know, with the intersectionalities. If we're looking at intersectionalities, they're even more at risk. So that's a really good target point. And then for the strategies to find these youth, I think it's really important that we focus on that. And I'm going to go into this in the mental health presentation. But if we're looking at the three types of prevention programs, you have prevention The first, the secondary, and the tertiary. The youth who are in the tertiary, the ones who are actively in crisis, they're not going to be showing up in prevention programs on that first level. So we're going to need the strategies that you talked about to go and find them. So I think that, again, going back to our goal to reach the most vulnerable youth, the ones who are actively in crisis or having repeated situations unhoused and that sort of thing, maybe having depression symptoms, anxiety, PTSD, who knows. But to really hone in on the strategies to find these youth, because again, they're not going to be showing up in that first tier of prevention programs. So I think this was very focused and very in point with what we're going to be talking about too.

All right, good deal. I may have went backwards, so I think I'm doing commissioner comment right now, and I think I do need to go back. Do I need to go back to if there's any speakers on this item?

Okay. But to clarify, we do not have any speaker slips for this item.

Okay, so we can't continue. So for commissioner comment, still in commissioner comment timeframe, are there any more thoughts?

I actually, if, Julie, is it possible, do you want to comment on, because I know we had a couple conversations with city staff, ultimately came to the conclusion that we would think about this in the frame of the RFP and not the strategic investment plan. We mentioned this at the last meeting where we want to see the strategic investment plan as more of that historic document where at the five-year mark is when we're talking about Yeah, like structural change for the strategic investment plan. But because we have an RFP cycle coming up, what is it, 2027? So it's already next year. I don't know if you can make just comments on like how this, like our conversations have landed with you all, what you're thinking on that front.

Yeah, thank you. I think excellent work. I think from the city's perspective, we're looking, of course, we have to toggle between, you know, with stay within the bounds of Prop 209. So that's always our consideration. And so looking at those strategies that were proposed and are any of them appropriate, you know, going too far, basically. Unfortunately, that's always the perspective we have to take. But they look like great strategies and I think they're doable. I think to SHANNON WILLIAMS POINT, WHAT OUR JOB ENDS UP BEING IS WRITING THE RFP AND ADDING THE SCORING, AND THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME IN AND THEY'RE INDIVIDUALS SO THEY ALSO INTERPRET THAT A DIFFERENT WAY, AND SO I'M JUST REALLY FOCUSED ON, LIKE, WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY TRANSLATE TO INTO THE RFP AND HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT THE SCORING CRITERIA WE ADD is going to produce those results and or what is it gonna look like for the applicants? So for example, we say if we wanna get this, in my mind I'm thinking we're gonna have to ask them for data and data on who they've served in the past in order to prove that they are reaching these people or they have established systems entryways, for example. I'm just thinking of some examples. And I think that could work, but I also think that that might be uplifting some of the larger CBOs that have more funding, that have the experience, that have the data. And so just understanding that that might also impact the small and emerging CBOs who are applying. So that's my initial thoughts. I think I have to sit with it a little bit and kind of workshop with you all and collaborate with you all what that would actually look like in the RFP to make it effective. But the strategies look really good and promising. The only other thing I would say is how would that interact with the other components that you're going to then request to be put into the RFP because how does it all work together sort of, if that helps.

Thank you, Julie. Commissioner Kravis, words?

Yeah, and I think that's exactly right, Julie. Yeah, I think starting the conversation of what does this actually look like in practice if we all sort of generally are on some of the same pages in terms of what the basic recommendation is in terms of these priority populations. And yeah, to your point, I do think it's a good point and definitely worth us considering about... the burden we'd be placing on applicants to sort of demonstrate some of these things. And that's where I think, yeah, we want to be, we want to allow for some flexibility, not that they need to have collected data per se, but they have sort of clear strategy, at least can like talk through some of their strategies for reaching young people in a way that, you know, is through some of the mechanisms that we like lift up in some of these sort of non-traditional kind of entry points, the community-based stuff, the trusted messengers. Yeah, sort of one of those, you know, these boots on the ground outreach stuff, which I do think you know, maybe caters more to some of the smaller orgs. And, yeah, so we'd want to create a scoring rubric, I think, for reviewers that really sort of hits on what we mean by that and that it doesn't necessarily have to be, like, you know, a long track record of data, but it has to be at least, like, a demonstrated strategy written out kind of stuff. I think that's at least where my mind went from some of that. And then yeah, I do think one of the things in terms of intersectionality I do I am curious to hear if others You know how others feel and or Julie you in the city feel about like these are the same priority populations that were already in the RFP but sort of yeah broken out across domains and if we think like is the way to get at intersectionality by asking Applicants potentially to say that they are hitting on youths that are dually impacted across all three domains kind of thing. Is that a way that we think is operationally useful for the RFP? Yeah, I guess I'm curious to hear from others how folks feel about that.

I have a quick question. Yeah. So this table, did you come up with this table?

So I put them into categories, and we talked about it, but these are the same bullet points that are in the, those are the priority populations that were from the SIP and in the RFP.

Got it, okay, so you pulled from that information. Yeah, this is a great table, and I think that, yeah, that idea is awesome.

Yeah, so the language was pulled directly from the RFP, but it's just... the identities, obviously, as people self-identify, but then you have the socially complex needs, which are determined by mostly place-based social factors, and then the hard-to-reach, which I think we can all agree, the groups that are included in there.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you. I'm thinking about how this is going to play out. And I really, you know, we've talked about this. I really like these three categories. I think one of the strongest reasons for using it is it's going to demonstrate to people or the organizations applying what we're talking about, about intersectionality. Because I know a lot of the grants, the grantees mentioned that they serve lower income children, which And so I think that in addition to that, we're looking at other children who are experiencing trauma and violence. So I'm just thinking about a program, they're not going to say, are you part of these three categories, right? That's not going to be a criteria for enrollment in a program, but more so, as you all are saying, a strategy for the organizations to do outreach so maybe we can make there's sort of a subtle difference there and maybe i'm just i think i'm just thinking out loud right now but how do we put that to julie's point in a concrete way where we're not saying you know every kid's got to tick one of these boxes but it's it's more of a strategy or outreach approach

I agree. I think that y'all really have given us a lot to think about. I'm going to say a lot of things out loud too that we may have covered already, but I like to make sure that I'm following the conversation. I like what Commissioner Craversworth said about demonstrated strategies. So I know that when we're talking about scoring and when we're looking at the RFP, I think that there's like a couple of things and questions I wanted to ask from City Attorney Gill's perspective. In listening to the conversation that we're having and the pieces that we're considering adding to the RFP, I'm trying to make sure we're not going too far. We're still within our bounds of what we would be able to do in this upcoming RFP session when we put the RFP out.

Hi. Good morning, everyone. I'm taking notes on all of the comments that you are making and all of your ideas and discussions. And so what my plan is is to take all of this back and work with Julie and our other YPCE staff to make sure that we are, one, making sure there's no contradiction with RSIP, but then also making sure we're within the bounds of our existing legal laws and framework. The work that you all are doing is really important and these conversations are really important. So I just want to make sure I'm not like stepping in in this moment and inhibiting those conversations. So I'm just taking notes and then making sure we can find a way to get to your desired outcome. So for example, I don't know if we would be able to do certain preference points for target populations that are related to race and ethnicity, for example. But perhaps there are other things that Julie and I can brainstorm and think about and then bring back to you as a commission. So those are just the type of notes I'm taking right now, Chair.

OK. Thank you. Which is good information. So for example, if we did do preference points, I want to go back to what Commissioner Craversworth said. So demonstrated strategy in XYZ, something along those lines that doesn't discriminate against race or I think all of the discriminatory bounds that we can't go out the lines on. we would still be able to do something along those lines and say that if we did have a preference point for that?

Yeah, so, like, for example, I don't see off, you know, this is just shooting from my hip. I don't see any issues with, like, children and youth with disabilities. If you wanted to add preference points with that, that would be okay. That wouldn't be... it wouldn't fall within the confines of Prop 209. If you want to, for the first bullet point, perhaps like another option would be like show your experience with like target populations as outlined in our SIP. That could be a workaround. So I think there are ways that we could come on the back end to really support your goals and how to move forward in a way that works for you guys.

Thank you for the insight. All right. So with that said, any additional commissioner comments on our targeted population conversation? Commissioner Kravitz-Wertz.

Yeah, so I guess I'm just curious, what do we want our next steps to be like with this? Yeah.

Yeah, I definitely would like for us to have something that we could at least move forward with. Can we put it back on the screen so that way we can see just so that we can go through? And if you could start from the beginning for me. And if there was a certain page that everyone would like to see, and while we're getting that up, and MediatePath shares, Ruiz-Marris? Did you have something?

Well, I'm wondering, and this is just my initial thought on what the next step could be. Well, what I was going to say originally, which now I feel like I mentally process probably doesn't make sense, but what I was going to say originally was, I guess, Julie, at some point, maybe this is not the immediate next step, but at some point, I think having you all draft what that would look like as a part of the RFP, and then we would vote on that, but maybe that's the like, there's another step we take before that because we have, when's our next meeting, August? Yes, August.

Yeah. I don't think that's going to, respectfully, I don't think that's going to be possible in the sense of us bringing back portions of the RFP.

Oh, right.

But I really think the way this is, well, I think another important piece to bring up, which, sorry, I was like, when do I insert this? But the city is really looking at pushing up the RFP to release it sooner, which I think we discussed at last meeting. It seemed like there was ample commission support there. And that's going to impact our timeline for all of this. So we would really like to be releasing funds by July 2027, which is still pretty much within the timeline, but it's going to give us less meetings in 2027 to sort of work out your recommendations. But since we're no longer planning to take an entire edited SIP to Council, it seems appropriate. There's multiple reasons why that is our recommendation to release the RFP sooner and then have the funds out by that time. But going back to your original question, I think that the best process would be for you all to ruminate on these questions and then just directly make recommendations to staff in the meetings. And we'll workshop those and put them into the RFP. And then maybe at our later meetings later this year or the early meetings in 2027, we can bring back like everything that you've recommended and this is what we think it will look like and discuss it and make alterations at that point.

um but we won't be able to bring back the rfp to the commission before it's published yeah and that's july 27 is a year from now basically and we won't have a meeting a month we won't be having a meeting a month between now and then because our meetings are like once every other month so i'm thinking that pro sorry i didn't know other folks are wanting to chime in um we can still meet as an ad hoc right our ad hoc is still

Absolutely. You would have to create ad hocs, but then you can meet as ad hocs as often as you'd like.

But I think ours is still going.

Oh, yes. Yours is still continuing. Yes. I meant if you wanted additional ad hocs to support the work outside of the meetings.

I guess my question would then be to the other commissioners of like, what would you all want to see in our next meeting since it's two months from now? That would... give you more, I don't know, more confidence in being able to move forward with some of the recommendations that we had here today.

I would, and real quick, if we could look through these and kind of hone down on something today, I think that that would be great, if we're able to. I know for myself, I don't mind I love this, the first, that was the one that I wrote down initially during the presentation. Like, do we need to go through the, because the considerations are just for the overall point, which was what I asked earlier. So if we can move, if we, I would love to know how everyone feels. How do we feel about moving forward with the considerations that have been made from the report? What do we want to keep so that way we can let Julie and staff know today so that way we can have that and move forward with the next thing we need to think about?

It probably to me is like a vote of like, you know, just like confidence of like, yes, you guys are headed in the right direction, like keep going. And then we can, with what we have come up with something that's more of like, what would, obviously this is not what the city would use, but like, like a sample of what that could look like within, within a future RFP.

Absolutely. Before I say anything else, Commissioner Williams.

I was just going to ask, I think this is a consensus, but are we all in agreement that we want to have unique scoring for these elements? I think we've decided that, yes.

Just to see, are we all in consensus with what Commissioner Williams just asked? Yes. Yeah, and I am as well. Can we go back, I believe, was it the boxes that you created, Commissioner Craversworth? So that way we can see, and if you could restate, because I know that we just went through all of the information, if we can restate what it is that we are adding and what we would like for staff to consider and put in there, so that way we can make sure, consensusly, we all feel good and we can move forward on our targeted populations. Does that make sense for everybody? Commissioner Graber's words.

Oh, yeah. So I wasn't sure if that was directed at me. Yeah. So with the potential asterisks from city attorney and sort of particularly, I think, around the multiple identities domain, I think the idea here is that we would somehow be uniquely scoring how well applicants are able to reach young people who are multi who are affected by all three potentially of these domains maybe two okay that was one so the reason some of those the the sort of that middle box is grayed out is like we could be saying you have to be in at least two of these versus in all three of these so there's i think there's a couple different options to kind of play around with but the idea is that somehow in the rfp we would be asking applicants about the strategies they use to reach, make sure that they are reaching young people across all, at least two or three of these domains and the strategies that they use. Like they would need to describe that and they would get a score for how well we think they are meeting that idea.

And is this a general score or preference score?

A what? Sorry.

So you know how you have your regular general scores for a rubric. Would this be an additional score for preference, or would this be a general score?

I think it would be, I mean, my personal recommendation would be that it would be part of, not a priority sort of additional extra, but a general.

Got it. All right. I like that. I like that. So, and just to make sure everybody, so thinking of, like when I'm thinking of a rubric, I wasn't in the scoring of our past RFP. You have your general questions, and remember we had preference points last time. I can't remember exactly, what do we have, what were the preference points for? Was it location? So we have preference for location, so we would be adding, so everyone's considering, we would be adding this as a general question in the RFP moving forward for targeted populations.

Okay. I think there are parts of it that are general, and then other parts that we might recommend as preference.

Of this table you mean? Yeah. I think maybe. Yeah, what do you think?

We probably still have to talk about it. Yeah. So to me, preference would be where we would have to consider not tapping into the race and Prop 209 stuff. Um, but there's sort of a general baseline of like youth and target populations that we want to reach. But the preference to me would, would be within that socially complex, hard to reach, um, categories. That's just off, off top. But I was, what I was going to say is, would it be possible for us to meet with, or for you to be a part of our meetings, uh, city attorney in the next, like our ad hoc meetings?

Yeah. Happy to do that. Okay.

That would be great.

I think that would be super helpful for us. Okay. All right. Commissioner Thomas?

Julie can go first.

Julie?

You should always go first. I think I just wanted to sort of, again, frame it to the RFP and what you're all saying in the general scoring. So the way that would translate, and I'm sure you all know this, but it's helpful, I think, is just that so we would literally have like a scoring rubric, and this is the rubric that's published with the RFP. And it would say that we could even include this table in it, but then we would literally maybe have a section that said, you know, applicants address these needs or something, and then we would have in the actual application that grantees fill out, there would be questions, and they would need to respond to those questions. And so they would have to explain this in a question, and then that question would be scored by the individuals, and that would be the impact on the RFP. And then I just wanted to bring, I know maybe this is another huge conversation, but just to note that the preference points we did have in the last RFP were based on the seed tool, which had a lot of indicators, including some of those things up there. What I will say is that like 98% of the applicants received the preference points for the seed tool. There is a way that we could rework that and make the requirements to receive those preference points a little more stringent. And that might also hit on the priority population. And so I think that's a consideration that if you guys are interested we could look at that. We were a little bit lenient on grantees and that preference points in the first RFP and in retrospect as a lesson learned that could be something that we improve upon in the next round that would also help with this, address this.

All right, good information. Commissioner Thomas.

Yeah, so it feels difficult to remember what I was doing a year and a half ago when we were doing the, because I was one of the two people, one of the commissioners looking over the applications. But we were lenient in a lot of ways when it came to, I feel like, looking at the scoring for the CBOs who got some of the funding. So I think I'm very excited to kind of see what it looks like when we're a lot more clearer about this. I think to your point about trying to redo the C tool, because I didn't realize it was 98% had gotten the extra points. That's very high. Kind of feels like a moot point, just a little, not a moot point, but just definitely it was a lot of, I didn't really realize how much that would be. So yeah, I think this is definitely a good step. I appreciate what the committee has done thus far. I think as someone who reviews applications, I think this would be a, I'm trying to find the right words. I think this would be a very clear guide for the folks who are reviewing applications as per the previous experience. So I think this would, I would, you know, I would actually be excited to do this again. Because I said I wouldn't do it again. I said I wouldn't do it again. However, with even more clear guidelines like these, I think I would actually be very excited to actually get back to the nitty gritty and actually do it again. So I think from someone who reviewed applications, I think this is very effective process that you guys are putting in front of us. So thank you.

On the record now. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Commissioner Kravers-Wertz.

Yeah, just one thing, I'm thinking, I appreciate the note about the seed and child opportunity index mapping piece and the preference points, and I do think maybe that's something we can talk about or include in our conversation with this priority populations piece, because I do think there's ways that we, again, can be more, we can narrow who might be included in that, and we had some of those conversations the first round and I think we broadened how wide some of those, the bounds were on some of the indicators and it's pretty easy to kind of play around with where we want those kind of bounds to be and so we can maybe wrap that into our ad hoc conversation too if that sounds okay, Julie, if that makes sense as part of this conversation. Absolutely. Julie?

Yes. Sorry, I just want to make a clarifying point, too, about the seed tool. When I say that the grantees qualified for it, what I mean by that is that the seed tool, like the decisions you made about the percentages that you all wanted to land on, that didn't necessarily, I mean, that's not what I wanted to say. What then we required of the grantees to submit as proof for that is where we were lenient. And so what my suggestion is is that the city looks at, you know, we had them fill out, for example, a, It was like an exhibit to the RFP and they had to list like the zip codes that they served and like basically a test that they then served those neighborhoods. We could then require more proof basically that they are serving those than what we had originally asked for. And then that could translate into maybe actually receiving, you know, maybe the preference points being a little more true to form.

Yeah, and I think that aligns nicely then potentially with this conversation that we would be having as part of the ad hoc to bring back about strategies, like what are you actually doing in these particular areas and within these particular domains of young people?

All right, immediate past chair Ruiz-Morris.

Julie, can you remind me if the seed tool was, if we were using that for where the, Not necessarily the offices or the address of where the entity was located, but it was like the populations they served.

So it was like we allowed them to include service locations. So like if they provided services at a community center, they could include that zip code. And then it was the participants zip codes as well were also included. And I believe like their main office, if they provided services at that location, but not if it was just like an office for administration.

Okay.

Commissioner Thomas.

So this is either for Julie or Commissioner Kravitz-Wertz. When we talked about capacity building, remind me, was it really about the application and the ability to do well in the application or was it about supporting these CBOs and expanding their scope to do this work?

we talk about capacity building and like how the commission and administrative staff can help them charm member i i feel like we had conversations about both so um i i mean that capacity building is so broad a term it could literally mean i feel like we definitely had conversations especially surrounding small and emerging cbo's and how we can help them with the application. And then we also did have conversations about capacity building for lifting them up to do the work. I don't think that, from the city's perspective, that's what we were really aiming for with this RFP. We actually have an RFP within our division called the Organizational Resiliency Fund that is currently running SCF grantees and applicants who did not receive funds, and that entire grant program is for capacity building, and that we've released in alignment with SCF to help build up organizations to be able to do the work, and also align them to better apply. So I think for our purposes, it's really capacity building Well, I guess it would depend on where you're talking about it, but I think it's more towards the application process.

Okay, I wanted to double check because I am, because the play the devil's advocate, of course, I think I wanted to make sure, because we've had this conversation about how lenient we were, and I don't want us to lean so much other side where it's so strict, or maybe we feel like we're struggling, and CBO's like, oh, I don't have the capacity to do all this. Like, this is more strict than I thought a couple years ago, right? And so I want to, I'm trying to make sure we're striking the right balance of that. So that's why I was kind of curious on what the capacity building looked like for some of the CBOs. So I appreciate it.

Good conversation on this. To kind of wrap this conversation up with a bow so we can end with our next steps, I did want to go back to what you just said, Commissioner Thomas, about capacity building with CBOs. I did hear from a lot of CBOs that the application, this RFP, was really difficult to fill out. It was, I believe it was long. These are just some of the words that are coming to my mind. It was long. It was a bit difficult. Difficult was just the word that I overwhelmingly heard. So I do hear you when it does come to when we have this next RFP and whatever this looks like. I don't want it to be harder, but I also want to add that we were thinking for our community community engagements ad hoc that we would have grant, I'm sorry, RFP assistance, so application assistance to help those small and emerging CBOs so that they know that they have help and assistance with doing this. So that is something that we do have in the works so that way you can have that and know that because we do want those small and emerging CBOs to have that assistance and we don't want them to feel that they don't have access or even a chance when it comes to getting grant funding in this upcoming RFP cycle. I did want to go back to when we talked about the rubric, the overall rubric, because I believe that that's what we're changing, and we asked if we were going to change the general language so that way we are able to, I don't want to say sway, there's another word that goes there, but to ensure that the CBOs and or entities that receive funding this upcoming term that they are impacting Sacramento's most vulnerable youth to make sure that they're doing that. And so in doing so, I want to make sure that we have all of the language and all of the next steps that are needed for our city staff and what we're doing next. So in regards to our ad hoc, what are next steps there and what do we need city staff to know as we're moving forward so that way we can wrap the targeted populations conversation up and know where we're going next. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay, so let's start with, on the ad hoc side, next steps there and what you have for city staff so that way we can move forward with that.

Yeah, I think to, assuming this sounds okay to you, Julie, it sounded like the idea on the table was for the ad hoc to meet again and take what we sort of laid out today through the slides and come up with a slightly more specific and explicit set of like here's what it could look like in the RFP here's like a question here's how maybe like how it would you know be scored with some of the criteria on which to be scored and then allow then that to potentially inform what the city then is able to do and within the confines of yeah prop 209 and whatever other kind of city constraints there might be

And I would say specifically if you want this to be a general question on what everyone is judged on or scored on would be the word, or if this is a preference. I think we were all leaning more towards general question. So I think that we probably were there unless it was a way that we needed to add something as a preference. But I think we were all leaning more towards general. That's what I thought.

I think that's generally right until and unless there's some of the caveats about Prop 2 or 9 that we would need to work around and could only maybe be preference points versus not. But yeah, I think no matter what, there would probably still be a general question that hits a little bit more specifically on the priority populations.

Okay. I think we'll probably come to the next meeting with like a couple different scenarios. No more than three, I think more than three would be too much. But between now and August, we'd probably meet as an ad hoc at least twice. I want to pull City Attorney Gill in.

And so then are we good with at the next meeting, because we get the information prior to the meeting, so would we all be comfortable when y'all bring that to the commission, us making a choice at that time?

Yeah, and I think, if I remember correctly, we have to send Julie the information for that meeting weeks in advance, and then it's posted, is it the week before? So you guys will get an opportunity to review it before the meeting.

Yeah, I think there's, it depends if you want to have a presentation or a document at the meeting. You do have a standing agenda item for a report out. That doesn't require, I mean, if you want slides again, then yes, we need A SIXTEEN DAY PUBLISHING DEADLINE. BUT IF YOU ARE JUST COMING TO REPORT OUT AND OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THEN YOU CAN VERBALLY DO THAT AT THE MEETING.

WERE YOU GOING TO ASK ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD IF THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VOTE. YEAH YEAH I GUESS OUR QUESTION IS LIKE WOULD WE BE VOTING OR IS IT JUST LIKE A.

You don't have to do a vote. You can all just say, we recommend this for the RFP and that is enough for us.

Okay. I think the other, I think, um, and maybe this is the wrong, not the right time to ask for this. Um, I think it would, we would like it to at least be a discussion item, not just the report out. Cause I think the report out is, um, doesn't really facilitate as much of a discussion. And I think at least, yeah, like at least leaving room for that, I think, um, might be useful if that's okay.

Yeah. I'm good with that as well. All right, this was a great, well-rounded conversation. I need some coffee, actually, but this has been wonderful. And so, once again, Commissioner Kravis-Wertz, past Chair Ruiz-Marias, Commissioner Williams, thank you so much for all of the work that you have been doing on this ad hoc. Great information. We are going to move forward now. To our next item, we will be discussing, oh, is this, is it item two? Sacramento Children's Fund Implement, okay, yep, Sacramento Children's Fund Implementation Update Third Year Review. And we do have a presentation. We have Vice Chair Ghaffari and Commissioner Thomas. Mm-hmm.

Good morning, everybody. Okay, so Devon and I worked on this presentation, Mental Health Defined. Okay, go ahead. So just as we've been talking about, really going back to where our compass is, what our aim is, and so funded programs will prioritize children and youth most impacted by poverty, violence, and trauma. With that in mind, that's what was steering this whole discussion. So considerations, so how do we define mental health? So when we got to thinking it was, I was looking up the definitions of mental health and I was like, okay, so we know this, we know what mental health is, but then it was more about what are mental health, the definition of mental health programs and mental health services. So what is on our current RFP and how can we be more specific with mental health? Also, how do we reach youth most impacted by poverty, violence, and trauma?

Okie dokie. And some of our considerations, right? When is the average onset of mental health symptoms? So 50% of all lifetime mental illnesses begins by age 14 and 75% by age 24. And so studies suggest that an average delay between the onset of mental health symptoms and treatment is 11 years. And for youth who are most impacted by poverty, trauma, and violence, this age can be sooner due to severe life stressors.

So when we're thinking about, again, our aim, we want to think about those youth who are out there experiencing mental health symptoms, depression, psychosis, you know, anxiety, and the ones that aren't being reached, the ones that, you know, don't have, that haven't talked to a school counselor. the ones who don't have supporting caregivers to help guide them to services of some sort. So that's why that was really important to see You know, where is that age group and which ones are the ones most vulnerable? So then we get to the primary, secondary, and tertiary mental health program examples. So this is a way that we're thinking that we could really organize how we're thinking about how to define mental health services and programs and how that fits into mental health. So primary prevention. So primary prevention involves proactive, universal strategies that stop a mental health disorder or crisis from developing in the first place. The goal is to reduce risk factors and build resilience. So when we were looking through the programs that received the grants, we realized that most of the mental health programs, we're just talking about mental health category, were in this category. in this category. So this is where we found an opportunity to get more specific about how to define mental health. Because what I'm thinking is that these are all really great programs and these organizations are doing really great things. However, if we're going back to our guiding light of going towards the most vulnerable youth impacted by poverty, violence, and trauma. I'm not sure that this is the way to go about it with focusing on primary prevention. Youth who go into programs that they're talking about psychoeducation or they're, like in those sort of programs, these youth might already be resilient and be reaching out for help. Again, so we want to, so I'll get there later. But so here's an example of a program that we gave funding. Oh, no, wait. Did we have? Okay. So an example here is school-based emotional regulation programs, parenting classes, public awareness campaigns on stress management, and community efforts to prevent childhood trauma. So again, most of the programs that we funded were in this category. So Devon, you want to talk about?

Absolutely. And if we go, we'll see our kind of more secondary prevention. So focusing on, sorry, make sure I'm on the right slide. So focusing on early detection, rapid intervention, and limiting the duration and severity of a mental health condition once it appears. The focus here is really to nip it in the bud from preventing it from worsening. So routine depression screenings and annual physical crisis text lines and brief early interventions for someone experiencing acute stress or grief. Now, when you go through the kind of annual report and look at the, you know, groups who got, you know, funding, there's, even just now, you can see there's a clear difference between primary and secondary. A lot of the funding that we gave were kind of primary programs, and we really want to kind of get into, again, to Lillian's point about those who are most deeply impacted. and really trying to address these issues. And so the next one is also our tertiary prevention, right? So this is really stepping in after a mental health condition has been diagnosed or an acute crisis has passed. The goal is to reduce long-term disability, prevent relapse, and help individuals maximize their quality of life. So examples, long-term psychotherapy, psychiatric medication management, rehabilitation programs, and ongoing peer support groups. And a really good example of something that we did or awarded was the SAC LGBTQ Center. So the center was going to launch a mental health training program for graduate level mental health trainees to provide affirming individual and group therapy services to LGBTQ youth ages 13 and 24 in Sacramento under licensed clinical supervision. The program aims to serve 60 clients with nearly 2,000 hours of care, while increasing youth engagement and improving outcomes, and really building a pipeline for LGBTQ affirming care in our community. And I think we're really honing in on the fact that this is an ongoing peer group, and we're also trying to address a very underserved community, as well as talking about under-licensed clinical supervision, I think is also really important. You know, the issue that I think we kind of what we had talked about, I think what the commission has talked about is to even point from earlier, you don't want to be too limiting where every single mental health has to be under, you know, a licensed clinical social worker or therapist. But you also can't be so broad where you feel like everything is being used. And you don't want the mental health umbrella to be abused as well. And so you want to finish from the next one?

So can we go back to the secondary prevention? So there were no programs in this category. There was one that we thought maybe could have been. It was serving refugees. Do you remember that? But then when we're talking about mental health, what this would look like in the secondary prevention category because Because what we're thinking is this might be what we want to focus on, secondary prevention programs and tertiary programs. And so secondary prevention programs would have to say, in the RFP, there is anxiety reported. There's depression reported. There's trauma symptoms reported. And maybe they're not clinically diagnosed, and that's OK. But at least there has to be some report of these mental health symptoms happening. And, you know, youth do talk about these things. So as long as we're saying that in the RFP, or we're asking that in the RFP in the mental health section, then we'll get that information. And then as for tertiary, this, you know, goes to our, you know, youth who are, you know, let's say they experience trauma and let's say that they're, again, like having active psychosis or, and they're also unhoused and they're, you know, they're experiencing crises and suicidality, and maybe being hospitalized. And these are the ones to how you were saying, how do we reach them? How do we find the strategies to reach them? And which programs are offering that?

And the current RFP, so just kind of the goal area one to kind of reiterate, you know, our focus is to support youth-driven, culturally affirming, and trauma-responsive strategies that, you know, and I kind of allow folks to read this because I think we've talked about this language quite often. But one, you know, increasing mental health literacy, so increasing knowledge and understanding of how to develop and maintain positive mental health. developing healthy cultural identities, focusing on culturally grounded protective factors over reduction of risk to help build a sense of belonging while countering a lot of stigmas. And we know a lot of these communities do face stigmas in their mental health care and their experiences with it. And then enhancing social, emotional, and behavioral learning. Providing cognitive behavioral interventions with teaching skills for emotional regulation. And then reducing access to lethal means as well. So for folks who know, securing access to dangerous items such as guns and medications. And that kind of touches violence prevention and substance abuse to some degree as well. And then you want to go on this one?

Yeah. So then in the current RFP, fund goal specific program design narrative questions. So just to give an example of what is currently on the RFP, describe how the program incorporates culturally affirming and trauma-responsive strategies, explain how the program incorporates fund goal-specific evidence-informed strategies listed under funding information, and describe how the services are equitable and accessible so that all young people may participate. And so... We took a look at the city of Richmond, their RFP. So what I saw here was that they were more specific on what types of programming. And so where we were talking about what is mental health, they were more specific on programming here. So individual and group counseling, therapy sessions, mindfulness and emotional wellness programs, mental health wellness support groups. behavior health, positive behavior intervention programs, violence and trauma recovery programs, trauma-informed training for staff, teachers, first responders. So I think that, not like every single bullet here, but these programs are what I see is focusing on that secondary and tertiary categories. And so here is a good example of, again, that secondary and tertiary program, because what they're doing is reaching children, adolescents, young adults, and families facing complex challenges such as trauma, poverty, foster care, and developmental disabilities. So they offer community-based, school-based, and visiting therapist programs to youth struggling with severe emotional distress, trauma, or behavioral challenges. So you're having services in the schools. I know that that's not the only way, but that is a way to find some of these youth. Therapists, I'm guessing they probably go out into people's homes. And I'm not sure about that, but I'm guessing with this. Wraparound programs. public and non-public schools to provide full service therapy, overcome barriers, academic and social success. And so this is a good, where it seems like their goal is to really find those youth who are actively experiencing mental health symptoms and reporting that, and also actively in severe distress and crises.

And then we have our California Youth Mental Health Corps. So it's this initiative pairing young adults 18 to 24 with schools, community orgs, and health clinics to serve as peer mental health navigators. The program addresses the youth mental health crisis while providing participants with professional credentials, higher education credits, and living stipends. So the role really is members serve to one to two year projects acting as trusted guides connecting teens. The focus is for helping youth process stressors related to social media, digital overload, and emerging technologies. really the benefits of participants' earned specialized training, certifications, and credits and whatnot. And so then, was there any more?

No, that should be it. And with these navigators, so they're the ones doing those strategies to find those youth who are experiencing these mental health symptoms and in distress.

And that is it.

And so also when it comes to those three categories, that is a way, I was talking about it today in terms of mental health, but that can be used in other categories as well and a good way to really organize what these youth are experiencing. So just some thoughts there.

I really want to reiterate before we kind of go on to any more discussion that it's really not to dismiss the work that has been done, the money that has been given out to the orgs that are doing great work in our community. But we want to be targeted. We want to treat that first process as a learning process, right, and how do we improve it for the next one and the next one, so on and so forth. And I think really trying to do our best to impact those who are experiencing, again, the greatest stressors in their community or their mental health is where we're at. So now we're open to take any feedback or questions from the rest of you all.

All right. I just first want to say thank you so much, both to Vice Chair Ghaffari and Commissioner Thomas for your research, for giving us some new terms to consider when we're looking at our goal areas as well. And just to kind of piggyback on what you said, not to dismiss any of the work that's being done currently with those who have already partaken in the Measure L funding to provide services for our most vulnerable youth, but just saying this next time around being targeted. And I don't think that that's anything wrong with that, just because that's the reason why Measure L was created. We wanna make sure that we're doing our due diligence as a commission to make sure that we're making those decisions, which is what we're doing right now. So thank you both so much. And so first, let's see if we have, clerk, do we have any Do we have anyone who wants to speak from the public on this item?

We do not have any speakers, Chair.

OK. All right. And so we can go to commissioner comments. So I, too, have some things to say, but would love to hear from the commission. What say you? All right. Commissioner Kravis-Works?

Yeah. So this is helpful, and it's made me So this is really helpful, I appreciate it, thank you both. Yeah, and so it's got me thinking about a bunch of things. And I agree, in the SIP, at least, I know we're mainly talking about the RFP, but in the SIP, what we lift up are strategies rather than specific programs. And I think that then translated into the RFP in a way that, yeah, may have allowed for a lot more room. in what folks are sort of proposing and may or may not have always been touching those youth that are most impacted by poverty, trauma, and violence. And I think there is a lot of overlap potentially in what we're talking about with the priority populations and some of the potential modifications to the RFP that might, yeah, solve some of these same issues dually. So that's one thing. So yeah, let's continue to kind of interface on that. I guess the other, I would love to hear from you both sort of what you see as the change to the RFP specifically, because where I'm struggling I think a little bit is like without changing the SIP, how can we change the RF, like what is it in the RFP that we're identifying as being able to change to address some of the programmatic specificity?

I guess, yeah. To be honest, I would just have to look over it again. So we didn't come here today with any recommendations on what to do, but that could be our next homework assignment. Because we definitely, if we're all in agreement with this information, and then we could come up with something.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you for that. That was really helpful and it also got me thinking about a lot of other issues. And I like that specificity in order to really focus the funding on the intention. So I was just, I pulled up the annual report for last year with the last funding cycle. So there was 77 mental health grants and there were only three in reducing substance abuse. And so I'm wondering how maybe we can think of this as a strategy for all of the different areas, and how do we get a bit more of a balance in these fund areas? So it was really more of just a question of moving forward.

I feel like I have comments on that but not like a concrete answer because I honestly think that we're a lot of. folks in the field that are supporting youth like we kind of see mental health as an umbrella term not. And then obviously there's the the I think it's the primary you know within those groups it's like if you have psychiatric support or like a therapist that's like a particular like form of mental health support but. it could be so broad. So I think that's why most folks probably put that as their first because it's a way to signal that broadly you're supporting the mental health and then maybe their second or third choice was what their program actually focuses on. And I don't know how we get in front of that because yeah, if we were to look into those 72, 77, I feel like underlyingly they would be supporting sort of youth violence or like other, preventing youth violence, but yeah.

So to that point is, one way is that we're making sure that the youth are actively reporting that they're having anxiety, depression, or another mental health symptom, because some of these programs didn't mention that. It was like, oh, there's support and wellness. But then it's like, okay, so are your youth actually in having mental health symptoms happening? And maybe they are, but they're not reporting it. But that's how we could organize this more when we're gathering the information to decide who gets the RFP, when it comes to mental health. If people are gathering and talking about mental health and wellness, that's great. However, that's more of primary. What about secondary? did somebody have a panic attack this morning sort of thing? And then let's make sure we're getting that information, and that's how we decide when it comes to mental health.

I just wanted to clarify, I was looking at the applicants, but the actual, the fund goals, 50% went to mental health, so it was a little bit more balanced now.

And I think that continues to bring up the conversation because you mentioned Richmond and I believe they do have like a structure for their for where it's like each each goal gets a certain percentage. Yeah. And I know that's something that we're also as a commission wanting to potentially explore. to continue this conversation. But yeah, I don't know if I was on the queue or not. But anyways, great job. That was a great presentation. Thank you so much for your work on that. We really appreciate it.

Commissioner Kravitz-Wars. Yeah, so this is actually related. Something else that came up for me. It may not be possible for the RFPs. It may be a SIP thing, but for us as a commission to think about more broadly. Because I remember... those of us who were somewhat, who were working on the SIP had this conversation, um commissioner williams you might remember it too um about how to structure things and one of the one of the ways that we had talked about originally rather than necessarily assigning a percentage of funds to go to each of the fund goals we could think about the fund goals as universal but then percentage of funds going to somewhere along the spectrum of prevention and so you know you might have you know maybe only 10% focus more on the upstream primary preventive end, but then you'd have whatever 50 and 70 at more in the kind of secondary and tertiary. And so I think that's just one way to also think about and get at kind of some of these dual factors where there are probably elements across all five fund goals that fall within the primary, secondary, tertiary preventative space. And it's not some, and even maybe some of the actual programmatic or services that some of the orgs that fell into the mental health category are doing might actually be more in the secondary or tertiary substance use category or violence response category. And so maybe as we think about this for the future, we don't necessarily need to think only about aligning across the different fun goals, but aligning using, yeah, potentially the spectrum of prevention as you know, a means for trying to allocate funds more along some of what you're getting at, anyway.

Good thoughts. Commissioner Williams? Oh, so I'm looking at some of the applicants, and again, all doing great work, but I think that it will really change our profile, because I'm looking here, there are a couple infrastructure projects under mental health, so the skate park, the Granite Regional Park, the SAC News and Review building conversion, as well as the technical educational partnership with Sacramento Fire. So all of these were under mental health and just kind of hitting home the fact that we're really looking at those kids who are experiencing some type of issue.

Sorry, skate park.

Yeah, I guess just to give some context why we're having this conversation to those people who are listening. So wanting to make sure that, yeah.

Yeah, because I guess to that point, Commissioner Williams, like some curiosities around what the reporting for that's going to look like and like how we're, you know, just acknowledging as a commission, like, when we get the report of how these infrastructural components benefited or made the lives of young people, specifically in the mental health realm of their lives, I just have a lot of curiosities around that.

Commissioner Kravis-Wertz.

Yeah, and I appreciate and agree with a lot of what's already been said. I just wanted to say out loud, too, as someone who comes from a public health background, that I think there's a ton of value in the upstream primary preventative kind of work. And so I don't want us to totally lose sight of that. And so that's actually in part why I was sort of talking about this whole spectrum piece and thinking about how our various strategies and funded partners kind of align along that. Because I do think there are other places that we really are hitting some of those more primary preventative areas, like the guaranteed basic income piece is a huge one there. And so when we're talking about primary prevention, we're also talking about systems level changes. things like providing people with the supports they need to meet basic needs. And so all of that is extremely important. So I don't want us to lose sight of that. But I do think we're hitting that in other places. And where we may be coming up short is some of the more secondary and tertiary. But yeah, just making sure we still are. I think a lot of us agree that there are very structural and systemic sort of roots of a lot of what we see downstream. And so we don't want to lose sight of at least having some of our funded partners you know, working up there at that level also.

So to your point from earlier about kind of like the 10% primary and then kind of more for secondary, tertiary, that is more of a SIP conversation than not an RFP one, right? Is it? Yeah, okay. Okay, just curious.

Could be either one, right?

Thoughts?

I don't think that we'll be able to assign percentages to the fund goals or percentages via levels of prevention in the RFP. I think that's too substantial of a change to not have to go back to council with. I think we might be able to look at, and it would be a consideration for the commission, like either looking at, like we prefer, maybe you could give a preference for a level of prevention by fungal, and that might be allowable in this RFP, like we would like to focus on or give a preference for without mandating a preference, because there's, I mean, potentially. Potentially, yeah. And I'd have to work with city attorney on that because there's just like a lot of gray area. But I think that's one approach we could take. I think we can't mandate certain programming because that deviates from the published SIP a little too much. Because we already, I think there was preventative programs listed in there and then we would be mandating something that contradicts the SIP. There's bounds that we could work at looking at preferred levels of prevention and preferred programming or evidence-based practices and or also building that out in the applications and the specific questions by fund goal. We could dive deeper into there to hit at the levels of prevention and the specific evidence-based or promising practices programming.

All of the conversation that we've been having on this has been really good. I've taken a lot of notes and I would really love for us to consider, and first let me go back. Thank you so much for the terms that y'all put in your report. So having a preventative, your levels of prevention, so preventative, your secondary and traciary. Am I saying traciary correct? Okay. I like that. And also with bringing back up the skate part, I've been very vocal in how I feel regarding that. And I think that the only way, and nothing's wrong with skate parts, skate parts are cool. I just feel like for what it is and the work that we're doing and with us being the knowledgeable and intelligent folks who sit on this commission and making these decisions to put out there, I think that it may be wise for us to consider more secondary prevention focus when it comes to moving forward with this new RFP, the secondary and tertiary, only because I believe from what Commissioner Williams just said, our first RFP and our first cycle focus more on preventative. And with that being said, would it be more wise for us to look at the secondary prevention focuses? So I just kind of, you know, me and a good chat GPT put some things together. So on secondary prevention focus, so as we were talking about mental health, y'all talked about the early signs of emotional behavioral concerns and or going into the things that it went into on the secondary side. When we're looking at substance abuse, just bringing it up just to talk about secondary, early use, experimental, risk behaviors, violence prevention, exposure to violence, gang risk, behavioral concerns currently going on, so not in the preventative. And then also for early development for zero to five, developmental delays already, family stressors. So if we're looking more in the secondary focus area, I feel like as we've been talking about, we'll be able to get the programs that we wanna see fulfilled through Measure L. Does that make sense? So I know that we have to, of course, come to that decision. You all are going to go back to what it is that you're looking for. I did want to find out, is that possible? So say if the commission decided, and this is just me just asking a question, if the commission decided, you know what, we want to focus more on the secondary and tertiary prevention levels, can we make language like that? and or general language for the rubric scoring that would focus in that area. And that's to Julie.

I think so. I'll have to work with city attorney. we can make a preference for it. I don't think we can mandate it at this point because I think that would go contradict the SIPP. So I don't think we can mandate that all mental health programmings funded in the next round of RFP are secondary and tertiary prevention levels. I think we can give a preference for those.

Can it be a high preference?

I'd have to work with city attorney what that looks like if it's points, for example, or if it's just written into the questions and we make a lot of the questions aimed at that, perhaps, that would have more impact in the results.

I think if we come up with something with how it would look like in the RFP, that might help kind of steer that, right, to see if it's okay or not.

Absolutely. Any specific recommendations are always welcome. And even if you wanted to get into questions that you would like to see in the RFP, we are accepting of all of your recommendations and advice.

Okay. Yeah, I think. Just from the conversation that we've all been having today, I think that that would probably be in our best interest, just because we can't change the SIPP itself. Lots of good conversation regarding percentages. Next time, what does that look like in all of the preventative areas? So if it is at the first level versus second or third, I think that that would be good overall when we update the SIPP itself. But for right now, us focusing on how do we best go to the preventative level that would speak the most to this cycle. That would be best, especially knowing in the first cycle, it was way more first level preventative than it was second and third. Okay. So in moving forward, so in wrapping this one with a bow, for our mental health ad hoc committee, if you could let us know what you're going to be doing to kind of to kind of shape what you're bringing back to the commission so that we can make that decision in our next meeting.

Okay, yeah. So just to say that we're going to bring something that, yeah, we can look at the RFE and then be creative?

Yeah. Okay.

Julie, would it be best, I know that you said specific language and Commissioners can add like if there were questions, what specifically would you need so we can know exactly what we're changing or what would you need specifically so that way we can make sure we move forward in the right space.

I think you can be as specific as you want, but I guess it would be just a recommendation. We recommend that we put a preference for secondary and tertiary prevention on the mental health and list these as our preferences for promising or evidence-based practices. And then if you wanted to go in depth as much as in the general scoring rubric or in the application for mental health, we would love to see these questions asked. That's welcome. It's not required. And I think what we'll do maybe for the next meeting is bring back a general discussion item where target populations can report out and so can you all based on recommendations to city staff surrounding the RFP and then you all will have a chance to present. And again, if you want slides, just let me know ahead of time. August, I'm sorry, I don't have the exact date right now. August 6th, thank you.

So, and just to reiterate what Julie just said, so it looks like we can have the most impact in the general questions that are gonna be asked of all of the applicants, so I think that that probably would be best for us, like when we're looking at that, to make sure those general questions are reflected in the direction of the programs that we're looking for as a commission. I will ask how high of a preference, I would love for the commission to know how high of a preference we can score that, since we can't change, like, we can't say specifically secondary, tertiary programs, but how high of a preference can we give to that? So research, whatever we need to do on research, if that's okay.

Okay, so you're asking how, okay, can we do preference points?

And how high of a preference point could be. Okay. Not like, oh, five points for this, like, what does that look like?

Yeah, okay, yeah, we'll look into that. And then I just want to make one comment, which I think is when we're talking about, like, what is the most impact in the RFP, preference points definitely is the highest impact for changing the outcome of who gets funded, not the general rubric. Because at the end of the day, it's like they're getting, they're applying under a general rubric and getting scored. And yes, that's very, I mean, that is the bulk of the points, absolutely. But I think the difference is made in the preference points of who actually scores the highest. But I just would caution that adding 500 tiers of preference points would be very complicated. Correct. Correct. And one of our lessons learned, again reiterating, was to simplify the application because it was really hard and cumbersome across the board for city staff, for applicants. for reviewers, right? And so let's, I just want to like keep that also in mind not to rain on the parade or anything.

No, not at all. And to that point though, I know you mentioned maybe having REUNDERSTANDING OF THE SEED TOOL THAT YOU MENTIONED BRIEFLY. I GUESS WHAT WAS KIND OF LIKE YOUR SURFACE LEVEL VISION OF WHAT THAT MEANT? I'M KIND OF LOOKING AT ALL THAT PREFERENCE POINT AS JUST KIND OF ONE CONGLOMERATE NOW AT THIS POINT.

YEAH, I THINK THE SEED TOOL IN ITSELF AND THE USE IN THE RFP, I THINK IT WAS GOOD. I THINK IT WAS, I MEAN, IT'S A REALLY POWERFUL TOOL. I THINK WHERE WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER IS IN How for applicants to actually receive those preference points? I think they need to provide more evidence that they are actually serving the youth identified in the seed tool and we were just too lenient and so perhaps it's they need to provide backup data that proves that they're serving these populations or you know, they need to provide evidence of programming in these locations. I mean, I can't, I would have to look at like, you know, maybe they need to provide an MOU or a license agreement for the community center. They provide the services or a list of, you know, participant data that names their zip code or something along those lines. So basically backup evidence, hard evidence, that they're actually serving the youth identified in the seed tool versus just basically what we sort of took their word for it. Okay.

Thank you.

I like that. I think that that's good. All right. Good discussion, y'all. This has been really good. So we're going to move on to our next item. So our targeted populations ad hoc report out. Are there any additional updates that you have that you would like to report out and speak on?

Oh, are we on, sorry, is it the third year review? Did we do that already? Is that the next one? Next one.

So are we moving on from that discussion item?

Oh, I'm so sorry, I was supposed to say that. Are we good to move on from that item? We were good? I think we did all of the wrap up. for everything for the last item.

Yeah, I feel comfortable. Yeah, Lily, how do you feel about that?

Moving on to the, so the next item was are targeted populations ad hoc report out in updates? So if there's any additional updates or any, we just, Just giving y'all that time just in case there was something else that needed to be covered. So that was your time, making sure you have your time. Okay, okay, good deal. Do we have, oh, was this where anyone? Oh, Commissioner comments, all right. We are moving on to our next item of Commissioner comments, ideas, questions, what have you.

I guess my question was, do we not have the third year review?

That so the third the third year review was their presentation I just had to create it as a very broad item so that we could discuss a lot of different things Sorry, yeah, I know it sounds confusing, but it's a broad agenda item in case you all wanted to discuss Substance abuse or something also.

Yes, and just analogies not I'm like Julie your last name is spelled wrong on here.

I

I just want to acknowledge that, whoever can fix that. It is, it is.

You know what, and just to go back just because that was a broad item and Julie did do that on purpose so that way we can talk and and bring up multiple things in there. I just wanted to add one more, like I just said, when we're looking at mental health since we defined it and we're making sure we go back to those definitions, when we're looking at early developmental for zero to five substance abuse and violence prevention, I would love us to be within those secondary categories as well and for us to, I guess do more for those specific goal areas since we weren't able to. I know we can't put a percentage on it, but if we can do our best in this new RFP and preference points or however we decide to do it, not oversaturating it, but finding a way to bring more to our substance abuse, violence prevention, and our zero to five. I just wanted to put that out there. Commissioner Thomas.

Did you want to respond to the chair?

No, I was just going to say I think that's a great idea. And before we wrap up this item, I would just, again, consider our shortened timeline and maybe look forward to, like, what else do you want to bring up to recommend for the RFP maybe in the next meeting so that I could schedule a discussion item. Do you guys want to look at the other fund goals? What are you wanting to discuss as recommendation-wise? Because we do have a limited timeline of meetings for that.

I totally forgot about that. Thank you so much for bringing that up. I would like for us to, like we've been analyzing our other fun goals, substance abuse, violence prevention, and zero to five, I would love for us to have a more in-depth conversation of what we're looking for in those areas as well. Since we've made that clear on targeted population, of course, guides us with the rest, but we've done that for mental health, but I feel like mental health, everybody can always apply to How can we do that with the others? Yeah.

Good idea.

OK. And Commissioner Thomas, did you want to?

No, go ahead.

So I'm just wondering on that, because we're kind of limited by what we can do to the RFP, versus the SIP. I'm wondering if the discussion, I'm just curious if we need the discussion specifically for each of the fund goals or if the discussion becomes more specifically how do we prior preference point out the sort of primary, secondary, tertiary approaches across the board so that it doesn't need to be, or I'm not even sure how we would do it within the RFP across the specific fund goals. But to me, it sort of sounds like the more likely way that we're going to be able to get at this is through the preference points. And that feels like a one item across the board at how do we do primary, secondary, tertiary, as opposed to trying to differentiate that across the goals.

Thank you for that clarification. It's more that what you just said, just because we can't, since we can't change the SIP, it is, So if we can make that into an item, how do we create those preference points in the secondary and tratiary for the fund goal items? Can we speak on that? I speak with my hands, I'm sorry y'all.

Yeah, so just to clarify and I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe doing like a discussion item where you all wanna look at maybe all the preference points you would recommend, including potentially intervention or primary, secondary, and tertiary. And also we can add that to the follow-up blog. So hopefully we can work with city attorney and respond in the interim between the next meeting about maybe like a response to what's possible. But as far as the discussion item we're proposing, a clarification on that would be great.

I believe so. And what that needs to look like, because I know that you said we can't, have too many preference points. So I guess letting us know how could that look and how can we verbiage that so that way it does speak to the different fund goal areas so that we gather the programming that we're looking for in this next cycle. Does that make sense?

Yeah, so I can work with city attorney and staff and hopefully bring something back to you to present, and then maybe you all can discuss what you recommend based off of my presentation. Yeah.

Yeah, I think that sounds good. The other thing, just, sorry, I know I'm somewhat out of order, but I think for our ad hoc committee on the target population side, maybe we can be thinking about it in terms of where, yeah, the general versus the preference points, and at least one of our scenario recommendations that we can bring back would be in that vein. I'm wondering, too, for the mental health group, instead of, if at least one of the kind of recommendations you bring back is sort of universally applicable across the kind of fund goals. I mean, I know like you all have been focusing very specifically on mental health, but we know that the spectrum of prevention applies across all services. And so I'm just wondering for all of us that are doing some of this thinking, if part of what we're doing before next month is then thinking about what that looks like in terms of the preference points, and maybe at least one of them is more generic than just specific to the mental health goal?

Yeah, I think that's a valid concern, Reese, actually.

I like that. In addition, is there a way, can we have, and I don't know if everyone wants this, but I would like it, can we have the questions that were asked last time so we can see when we're talking about changing questions, can we see what those questions were so we can see what it is that we can change those to?

Sure, they were published with the RFP, but I can specifically pull that out and send it to you all.

Absolutely. Do y'all feel that that would be beneficial, especially as we're changing the questions?

Yeah, I mean, I had requested, I think Julie, you sent that to me before because I directly requested it from you. We're talking about the questions in the RFP, right? Yeah.

Yeah.

But I think maybe sending it out to the commission.

Yeah, so we can edit those and can that be a part of the conversation? So if anyone has any changes they want to Is that too much?

No, it's fine. I was just thinking we love it when you request things in the follow-up log. It's just very helpful. But we can add it to the follow-up log, yes.

Okay. I'm excited for the day when you say, yes, it is too much, stop bothering me. I'm very excited for that.

I'll never say that. Oh, my goodness.

Oh. Matters not on the agenda. Yeah, so are we, not to cut anybody off, but we will have to extend the meeting if we want to continue the conversation, and that's fine. But we do have comments for matters not on the agenda, plus your commissioner comments. Just FYI.

Absolutely. So let's go ahead and get, first, can I get, can we get a motion to extend the meeting?

A motion to extend the meeting.

A second. A second. All right, so we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstain? OK. OK, the motion passes. We can continue.

All right. And I don't believe that it would be two, because we've gotten a big part of the meeting out. But I apologize that we didn't get to matters not on the agenda. Clerk, do we have any comments?

I think you guys went back to discussing a little bit more into depth for item four. So if you guys are complete with that, then we can move on to commissioner comments. And then after that will be matters not on the agenda, which we do have speakers for.

We do have speakers for that. I apologize. I'm sitting here just trying to, cause I know we've, we've been talking a lot and this has been really good conversation. Are we all wrapped up on, uh, items that we wanted to add for next meeting? Anything additional that we missed?

I FORGOT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY PREVIOUSLY, BUT NOW I JUST WANTED TO CLOSE THE LOOP AND MENTION TO THE AD HOC THAT WE'LL MEET BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST, I THINK PROBABLY TWICE, AND THEN IN ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, CITY ATTORNEY GAYLE, IS IT GAYLE? PULL IN TO HAVE A BROADER CONVERSATION OF LIKE THE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE TARGET POPULATIONS how to structure that within a sample RFP that we would bring back to the commission in the August meeting. And having at least two to three options for us to react to and hopefully in August be able to move forward with one.

Excellent. Sounds really good.

Was that considered your ad hoc update, just to clarify? Yep.

Thank you. There we go. All right. We are moving forward to public comment. Matters not on the agenda.

Are you moving that up?

Oh, I'm moving it up?

Yes, if commissioners don't have any comments.

Can I go back to commissioner comments?

Yeah, we can do matters not on the agenda first.

Perfect.

We do have three speakers. Our first speaker is Zeus.

Oh, I should have did that first.

You want to need to go first. So can we switch the me first and then him? Yes. Are you Carla?

Yeah.

Okay. So we'll do Carla and then Zeus. Okay. Okay. Good evening or good afternoon chair and commissioners. My name is Carla and I'm asking this commission to publicly agendize and make it a discussion item. The city of Sacramento is proposed title 17 cannabis zoning changes. Staff and council seek to put drugs next to parks and you centered programs. This commission exists for one reason, to protect children and vulnerable youth in our community. Yet today, the city is considering rolling back longstanding protections that were specifically designed to keep cannabis businesses further away from youth serving spaces, residential neighborhoods, churches, parks, and other sensitive uses. I understand that the cannabis tax revenue helps fund important youth programs through the Children's Fund, but I respectfully ask this commission to separate the funding source from the responsibility to protect children and health and safety. Please ask yourselves, why are we moving highly intoxicated, highly addictive cancer-causing products closer to the very youth this commission was created to serve? And it's not a theoretical. Just recently in Sacramento, an armed robbery at a cannabis business turned into a deadly gun battle involving a dispensary security guard and armed suspects exchanging gunfire. These are the types of public safety risks that come with the industry, armed robberies, violence, impaired driving, and dangerous criminal activity. Children should not be placed closer to these environments. The commission should have a voice in this discussion before irreversible decisions are made. I respectfully ask that You add Title 17 to a future agenda. Publicly discuss the impacts these changes will have on our youth, family, and formerly opposed weakening these protections. Please stand up for Sacramento's children, neighborhoods, and vulnerable populations. Also really quick, I noticed that you guys had your considerations too. Multiple marginalized identities, social complex needs, hard to reach, poverty, violence, and trauma. I would argue that all of these have substance abuse and drugs involved. Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Zeus.

Hi, Chair and Commission. My name is Zeus, and I'm nine years old. I like swimming and playing baseball with my friends at the park. I know that cannabis is a drug and drugs make people's brains sick. I'm asking you to please talk about the city's new cannabis. Zoning. Zoning changes at a future meeting. This commission is supposed to protect kids like me, so I don't understand why the city wants to remove, wants to move cannabis businesses closer to places where me and my friends and me and my friends play baseball and where other kids play. Drugs are harmful for everyone, especially young people because their brains are not fully developed. Please think, and these drug stores have been involved in robberies and violence. Please think about my safety and kids first. I ask you to please discuss helping protect Sacramento's children and neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We did have one last speaker, Mercedes, who does not appear to be here any longer, so we are complete with public comment matters not on the agenda.

I just wanted to say Carla and to Zeus, thank you so much for your advocacy and also bringing the matters that you brought to the commission today. We do appreciate it. And Zeus, thank you for being a little advocate today because that took a lot of courage for you to come up here and to let us know. So I know you're going to be a young leader in your community. So just want to say thank you. All right. All right. So we're going to go ahead and move forward to commissioner comments. And we already have past chair. Where's Mars?

That warmed my heart. Cause my nephew is the same age and also plays baseball. So, can we add to the follow-up log a staff presentation on the zoning changes? On those, because I have an idea.

You can request to add that to the follow-up log, and we'll have to do an analysis on whether that's within the purview of this commission.

Yeah. I think that's appropriate. Just wanted to add that.

Yeah, that was definitely something that I was going to ask, especially since they were bringing it to the to the commission and knowing exactly what's within our purview and not, but definitely, of course, with the relation to youth and substance abuse and things of that sort, I definitely was gonna ask that question of what can we do and what can't we do in regards to the matter that was brought forward today.

Yeah, and even if it's not within our purview and that's not something we talk about in our meeting, is it possible to get resources from the city staff about learning more about that?

I have to defer to City Attorney Gill. We can discuss outside of this, but I think maybe we could refer you to the appropriate department to seek more information, and certainly you can advocate outside of your role as commissioners with the council on this topic.

You guys emailed us, right, about this?

There was a request, so a member of the public, yes, did request to have this emailed to the commission, and the city complied with that request and forwarded the email.

Okay, thought so. Thank you.

And I guess, regardless or not, if it's within our purview or us just being citizens who care, especially for the work that we do for youth every single day, getting them to the right people that can or whatever, wherever it needs to be advocated so that that way they have the resources that they need. just as it was just stated. So just wanted to throw that out there.

If I may, through the chair, I believe that the issue that they were discussing will likely go for discussion to city council on June 16th at 2 p.m. So we'll have the agenda published along with related staff report. I'm not familiar with that issue specifically, but I do have it noted that it's going to council on June 16th at 2 for, I believe, a first review or first discussion.

Okay. Good. Yeah. All right. Or even information, I guess, like, I don't know. I was wondering if I needed to say if that was something that needed to be brought up, like a public comment at a city council's meeting or something along those lines, but it looks like we're all doing the jobs. Okay. Good. Good. All right. Let's see. I think we have concluded our agenda. I just wanted to just go back. We've concluded the agenda.

Okay.

thank you so much. I just want to make sure we talked about a lot this one to go back to the conversation that we had and I want to say this once again. The reason why absolutely love this commission is because we are working commission in each of you dedicate a lot of time and research in doing the things that you do to make sure that we' re doing the work that sacramento needs us to do through the measure rail commission and so I just want to say thank you so much for all of the reports that you put in doing this. Also, of course, always want to say thank you to Julie and staff for everything that y'all do in gathering all of the details and research and bringing back to mind things that we may have not thought about because there's a lot of materials. There's a lot of documents and things that we may have forgot about. Y'all are always bringing those back into play and assisting us along this journey. So we definitely want to say thank you to that. Also want to congratulate Commissioner Thomas on his run for County Board of Education. Just wanted to just say wow to you, just because that took a lot. And of course the votes are not all counted yet, but just wanted to just congratulate you on the courage to even move forward in a public election like in the one that you ran. So just wanted to make sure that I said that. You said oh.

What I will say is this, the only reason I even felt remotely capable of doing that has been all the living and learning on this commission. I have to say, there's been one too many commissions throughout my life, and this has without a doubt been my favorite one I've been on, and it's been the one that's informed me the most on how to be a leader in this community, and so I'm really grateful for that. It really, really is, my mom said, it's never a loss but a blessing or a lesson, and I think that is the way I want to navigate my life. I care too much about this city to let one election define me. And I care too much about these youth. So I'm really grateful to be here. And I told Katie last night, I was like, I'm still going to be here for four more years now. So y'all are stuck with me. So very excited to be here with all of you. And continue to keep pushing the good fight for the children of Sacramento.

There you go. So just wanted to just make sure that we made mention of our very own. in even having that courage to even move forward in that election. So if there is nothing else, if we don't have any other comments or things that are here, I guess we can conclude the meeting for today. So meeting adjourned at noon. Okay?

Thank you. Thank you.