Letter to the BOS And HRC
Letter - DOC
Leter - PDF
Demand to Rescind and Reissue the HRC RFP 100 Grant Process
As representatives of the Black community and allies, we are requesting the San Francisco Human Rights Commission (HRC) to immediately cancel, redesign and reissue the 2025 Request for Proposal (RFP) 100. This is not just a call for transparency; it is a demand for justice, accountability, equity, and fair treatment in the RFP 100 grant process.
Critical Failures in the RFP 100 Process
The recent RFP 100 grant process was deeply flawed, both in design and execution. Despite its framing under the Dream Keeper Initiative (DKI), the process deviated significantly from its stated mission to invest in and empower the Black community in San Francisco.
Major issues with the application process include:
Misuse of AI Tools:
We have reason to believe that AI technology was heavily relied upon from the inception and at critical junctures of the RFP process, without adequate oversight or equity safeguards. If true, this is unacceptable, as AI can replicate existing systemic biases—especially discriminatory outcomes against Black-led organizations and the Black community.
The use of artificial intelligence tools to design and screen applications introduced unnecessary barriers for applicants. These systems prioritized keyword recognition and formatting consistency, favoring organizations with professional grant writing infrastructure while penalizing those with limited digital literacy. Given the well-documented digital divide disproportionately affecting Black communities in San Francisco, it was foreseeable that capable and community-rooted Black-led organizations would be systematically disadvantaged by this process. Many of these organizations—though deeply trusted within their communities—were placed at a structural disadvantage.
Without targeted support, their applications were more likely to be flagged or rejected by AI for formatting or linguistic reasons, rather than the quality or impact of their work. This approach undermines the intent of the RFP and calls into question the integrity of the entire RFP process.
The use of improperly vetted AI technology introduced design flaws that led to the exclusion of numerous qualified applicants and effectively usurped the competitive process originally mandated.
The Human Rights Commission (HRC) was aware that its RFP technical assistance workshops were insufficient to support applicants—especially given that RFP 100 introduced a new, AI-assisted application and evaluation process. Despite the novelty and complexity of this shift, no substantive guidance or accommodations were made for under-resourced applicants.
No meaningful technical assistance was provided to help smaller organizations or disadvantaged groups navigate the complexities of the application, compliance, or appeals processes.
A seasoned City & County contracts and RFP team would have likely identified and corrected design phase inconsistencies and inequitable terms, rather than heavily relying on AI. HRC staff did not substantively consult with other city departments or the broader Black Community in light of its own department’s deficiencies in this area.
Rigid RFP Rules Violate Public Fairness Doctrine and Justify Immediate Cancellation of RFP 100:
HRC’s documented intent to penalize or reject proposals and appeals for superficial formatting issues (e.g., header placement) over substance and impact is a clear violation of the Public Fairness Doctrine in city contracting procedures.
Improper Scoring, Review, Award, and Appeal Process Undermines Transparency and Public Disclosure
HRC 100 requirements for eligibility and scoring rubrics or criteria were opaque, convoluted, and lacked cultural competency and an equity lens.
HRC failed to comply with its own stated obligations as outlined in section 4.6 of RFP 100 - Transparency & Public Disclosure by issuing inconsistent and non-standard communications to applicants and awardees. While some organizations received detailed scoring feedback and awardee information, others received no substantiation response despite multiple outreach attempts. Instead applicants were sent generic form letters that failed to address specific inquiries, questions, and concerns.
HRC implemented unauthorized and unannounced procedural changes to evaluation, scoring and appeals protocols that materially deviated from the published terms of the RFP. HRC’s staff conduct and actions constitute a breach of process and provides sufficient grounds for the immediate cancellation and reissuance of the solicitation after an extensive community feedback and review process.
HRC did not widely publish how much funding each awarded organization received or what was included in their proposals upon announcement of award as stated in RFP 100 documents.
Many applicants received rejections based on inaccurate claims, misstatements, or vague reasoning that misrepresented their applications. As a result, many were improperly scored or rejected for minor spec deviations.
There is no language in the application which provides an adequate remedy for applicants who were victims of the aforementioned issues. At this juncture of the process, any unfair evaluation necessitates the immediate cancellation of RFP-100 to prevent further harm.
Discriminatory Technical Requirements
Unequal Resource Leverage: Larger nonprofits—many of whom already manage multi-million dollar contracts across several City departments—were positioned to use RFP 100 funds to hire additional staff, absorb indirect costs, and expand services. In contrast, smaller organizations were expected to stretch limited resources without comparable flexibility or support.
Restrictive Budget Cap Formula: Capping allowable budget requests to a percentage of the prior year’s tax return failed to account for the operational realities of emerging Black-led organizations. Many of these groups have existed for fewer than two years and have relied primarily on DKI funding to serve their communities. As such, the capped formula effectively punished success and momentum by restricting access to the level of funding needed to continue and scale their work.
The disproportionate emphasis on an organizations fiscal or financial capacity-rather than the Dream Keeper’s Initiative core intent to serve the Black community and produce measurable community centered outcomes-has resulted in the replication of failed public policy models. This approach undermined the stated equity goals of the RFP and perpetuates structural harm by sidelining smaller Black-led organizations that have historically delivered meaningful impact. Many of these groups have achieved outcomes never realized by the prospective awardees, and deprioritizing their contributions risk reversing hard won progress in Black communities.
The requirement to submit a minimum of three years of 990 tax filings to be eligible for submission eliminated many newer Black-led nonprofits, including previously funded DKI recipients who successfully met the terms and conditions of HRC’s Dream Keeper Initiative
Lack of Cultural Competency and Equity Lens:
Applicants were asked to demonstrate “culturally affirming and community-led” work while simultaneously prohibited from submitting any racial or demographic information about their staff, board, or leadership. This contradictory requirement made it impossible to meaningfully assess cultural relevance or representation in scoring models or the selection process.
The RFP failed to incentivize or require partnerships between large-budget and small grassroots organizations, despite repeatedly calling for collaborative models in public equity conversations.
Consequences for Black-Led Organizations
The failures outlined above have had serious material consequences for Black-led organizations and Black residents living in San Francisco:
Widespread Exclusion:
A sizable amount of the funding did not go to Black-led organizations that anchor support for the cultural assets and economic vitality in historically Black and African-American communities, directly contradicting the DKI’s stated priorities.
Job Losses and Instability:
Numerous organizations are now facing layoffs of Black staff members.
Programs serving Black communities are being paused or shut down due to the loss of critical funding.
Reversal of Progress:
Many of the new Black-led nonprofits that emerged through the DKI are now being defunded or disqualified due to arbitrary eligibility requirements.
This undermines years of momentum and threatens to erase tangible gains in Black community infrastructure and services.
Our Demands
We are not asking for special treatment. We are demanding fair treatment.
We call on the San Francisco Human Rights Commission to:
Rescind and reissue RFP 100 with transparent, equitable, and culturally competent criteria.
Immediately pause funding disbursements to newly awarded organizations.
Publicly disclose the scoring criteria, reviewer identities, proposed award amounts, and the justification behind each grant award.
We request that future RFP evaluation panels be composed of no less than 50% individuals who demonstrate cultural competence in the history, lived experiences, and contemporary challenges and successes of the African Diaspora and Black communities. This representation is essential to ensure that proposals are assessed through an equity-informed lens that recognizes the unique contexts and contributions of Black-led organizations.
Eliminate barriers such as the 3-year 990 requirement and punitive formatting penalties.
Create a clear appeals process and opportunities for feedback for all applicants.
Require large-budget organizations to partner with smaller, community-rooted Black-led organizations for joint proposals as a condition for funding.
Provide technical assistance and capacity-building opportunities for Black-led organizations who were denied.
Investigate and end the use of racial proxies in public funding that result in the systematic exclusion of Black-led organizations.
Our Commitment
Black-led organizations and our community are not asking for charity. We are demanding equity and accountability from a system that was supposed to be designed for us.
The City cannot claim to champion equity while erasing the very organizations that embody it. We stand united in demanding that the Dream Keeper Initiative be implemented with integrity, transparency, and a true commitment to the Black community.
Signed,
Black-led Organizations, Advocates, and Allies