Supervisors press staff on district equity, monitoring as county readies second round of community capacity funding

Board members spent much of the Nov. 8 meeting probing how Alameda County evaluated and will monitor grants from a community capacity fund tied to AB 109 planning.

A staff presenter summarized the review process: applications underwent a pass/fail screen tied to bidders-conference attendance and in-county business requirements, followed by three scored review rounds. "Out of the review 1, 20 apps made it to the next review. Review 2, 18 apps made it to the final review, and review 3, 18 apps were recommended for award," staff said, adding that applicants requested about "$9,900,000" while "the actual awards were just a little under. It's 2,966,000." The staffer said the vast majority of proposals were in the Tier 3 category (up to $250,000).

Supervisors repeatedly asked whether awards matched the county's probation population and where services would be delivered. One committee member asked, "So I just wanna make sure that where the population is that they're being serviced." Staff replied that they will overlay provider locations on district maps and report back, and provided district-level shares of awards: District 2 received about 18.9% of awards (versus 20% of the adult probation population), District 3 received 10.2% (versus 28% of population), District 4 about 18% (versus 30% of population) and District 5 about 52.8% (versus 16% of population).

Supervisors also pressed on outcomes and monitoring. Supervisor Carson said he wanted to ensure early investments "lend themselves to a link that sets up an operation" producing services and measurable outcomes rather than only seeding experiments. Staff said contract monitoring for the implementation phase will verify that grantees complete what they proposed, and the next phase includes $240,000 for technical assistance and an approximate $250,000 evaluation budget to measure what the county obtained from the investment.

On prevention versus reaction, Vice President Chan asked whether the awards reflected prevention or only support for organizations serving incarcerated or recently released people. Staff said the capacity fund does not provide service dollars—its intent is to increase organizational capacity to bid on service contracts—though the next round's criteria and an RFP addendum could emphasize prevention and specialty services.

The board called for additional transparency: supervisors asked for a district-broken applicant list and for staff to clarify whether listed addresses are service locations. Staff said the applicant list had been provided previously and that they would provide further overlays and a report ahead of the next round.

A motion to approve the item passed without objection after staff confirmed follow-up reporting commitments.