TO: Napa County Wildlife Conservation Commission
FROM: Dana Morrison, Secretary to Commission
REPORT BY: Pam Arifian, Planner III
SUBJECT: Process Improvements: Past Grant Funding Data & Comparative Processes
RECOMMENDATION
title
Receive a report on historic grant funding and comparative process information to inform discernment on potential improvements to the grant awards decision-making process.
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Receive a report on historic grant funding and comparative process information to inform discernment on potential improvements to the grant awards decision-making process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Not a “project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the February 23, 2026 Special Meeting of the Wildlife Conservation Commission (WCC), the Commission requested multiple data points to inform and support the development of improvements to the decision-making process for the annual grant award. The Commission also requested more information on the process for other County Commissions administering a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund grant program.
Following and attached are data regarding categories of funding and percentage of award categories over the most recent 5- and 10-year datasets, as well as information regarding repeat grant recipients and funding of staff positions, which has been provided below and in the attached documents, in addition to the information about process from other Counties. Following this information, there are ideas proposed for consideration that address issues and ideas encompassed in past discussion, current feedback and historic funding information.
Grant Funding History
Following WCC recommendations, the County has provided grant funding to a total of 36 different organizations over the past 24 years, with an average of six to seven grant applicants / recipients per year. The WCC recommended a total of $1,136,535 in funding since 2002, with an annual average of $47,356 awarded for programs and organizations doing work in one of the following categories: Environmental Education, Wildlife - Direct Care, Habitat Restoration, Wildlife - Research, and Miscellaneous (includes equipment for CDFW enforcement).
Funding By Category
Table 1 (attached) details funding history in five- and ten-year data sets of average annual funding by category, including the average number of applicants by category over the five- and ten-year datasets.
Average Annual Funding and Number of Applications by Category: 5 years (2021-2025)
• Education: $33,352 (57% of total awards); 4.6 average annual applications.
• Restoration: $11,267 (19% of total awards); 1.2 average annual applications.
• Wildlife - Direct Care: $9,580 (17% of total awards); 2 average annual applications.
• Research: $3,812 (7% of total awards); 0.8 average annual applications.
• Miscellaneous: $4,376 was awarded in 2022 and rolled over in 2023 for CDWF outboard motor, but CDFW could not receive the funds, therefore never funded and not included here. 0.2 average annual applications.
Average Annual Funding by Category: 10 years (2016-2025)
• Education: $27,418 (52% of total awards); 3.8 average annual applications.
• Restoration: $11,070 (21% of total awards); 1.1 average annual applications.
• Wildlife - Direct Care: $9,657 (18% of total awards); 1.6 average annual applications.
• Research: $4,084 (8% of total awards); 0.8 average annual applications.
• Miscellaneous: $5,000 (1% of total awards) - One (1) grant to CDFW for enforcement equipment. 0.2 average annual applications.
Repeat Grant Award Recipients
At the February 23, 2026 WCC meeting, the Commission requested information regarding WCC grant awards recipients that have repeatedly received funding over the years. Table 2 (attached) provides information on repeat recipients, including how many awards were received, the total award amounts and in what categories, all of which is summarized below.
• Land Trust of Napa County: 21 times since 2003 ($186,679) (Restoration, Education)
• Napa County Resource Conservation District: 21 times since 2005 ($208,956) (Education, Restoration)
• Napa Wildlife Rescue: 19 times since 2003 ($148,815) (Education, Wildlife - Direct Care)
• Napa-Solano Audubon Society: 12 times since 2013 ($78,024) (Education)
• Institute for Conservation Advocacy Research: 10 times since 2007 ($49,800) (Research, Education)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife: applied 10 times since 2002, but last successful funded project was 2019 (equipment for enforcement) ($50,219) (Miscellaneous)
• International Bird Rescue: 7 times since 2019 ($31,650) (Wildlife - Direct Care)
• American Canyon Community and Parks Foundation: 3 times since 2023 ($35,011) (Education)
• Carolyn Parr Nature Center: 3 times since 2005 (10,691) (Education, Restoration)
Staff Salary Funding
At the February 23, 2026, WCC meeting, the Commission requested information regarding WCC grant awards that support staff salaries, including how many “career” staff (regular salaried position) vs. “program” staff (short-term or project-based) and at what total amounts have been awarded to each type.
The WCC has funded an approximate total of $311,787 in support of staff salaries since 2002, including career positions at the organization for time spent on specific programs (for example, Napa County Resource Conservation District staff time on specific, short-term education programming), or to career positions (for example, in the case of Napa Wildlife Rescue, to facilitate the consistent educational programs and wildlife rehabilitation that is foundational to the mission). The WCC has granted a total of $365,615 to these organizations in the same time period, resulting in 85% of funding granted towards staff salaries. Table 3 (attached, and as summarized below) provides details on past recipients that received awards in support of staff salaries, including what percentage of the total requests were for salaries, and whether the support was for “career” staff or “program” staff.
• Napa County Resource Conservation District (RCD) has received an approximate total of $95,705 from WCC grants towards salaried staff since 2007, with an average of $7,362 per year over 13 years. The funding supported career staff salary for their time spent on specific program implementation including Youth Stewardship Council and Monarch Habitat project, as examples. RCD has received WCC grants 21 times since 2003, with a total of $208,956 for Education, Research and Restoration.
• Napa Wildlife Rescue (NWR) has received an approximate total of $75,996 from WCC grants towards salaried staff since 2018, with an average of $12,666 per year over six years. The funding has supported a percentage of full-time staff salary for a position that is built into the operations (Environmental Education Coordinator and Wildlife Rehabilitation Technician). NWR has received WCC grants 19 times since 2003, with a total of $148,815 for Education and Wildlife - Direct Care.
• Napa-Solano Audubon Society (NSAS) has received an approximate total of $75,448 from WCC grants since 2015, with an average of $7,549 per year over ten years. The funding has supported a percentage of part-time staff and/or interns who are facilitating Audubon programs. NSAS has received WCC grants 12 times since 2013, with a total of $78,024 for Education.
• Institute for Conservation Research and Education (ICARE) has received an approximate total of $39,936 from WCC grants since 2007, with an average of $3,994 per year over ten years. The awards supported ICARE staff/consultants for work on the specified projects. ICARE has received WCC grants ten (10) times since 2007, with a total of $49,800 for Restoration, Research and Education.
• American Canyon Community & Parks Foundation (ACCPF) has received an approximate total of $24,662 from WCC grants since 2023, with an average of $8,221 per year over three years. The funding supported salaried staff for work on the specified programs (Watershed Protectors/Explorers). ACCPF has received WCC grants three (3) times since 2023, with a total of $35,011 for Education.
FWPF Award Processes from Other Counties
Staff conducted a review of what was publicly available from the equivalent Fish & Wildlife Propagation Fund Commissions/Committees of 30 counties in California regarding grant award criteria, scoring or other information about the decision-making process. Based on the limited available information, the following models / processes are presented for comparative analysis.
• Alameda County Fish and Game Commission
o Either one $30,000 grant for habitat restoration, or
o One to two grants of up to $10,000 and five to eight grants of up to $5,000
• Solano County Fish & Wildlife Committee (Refer to Attachment)
o Grant evaluation scoresheet with following criteria:
§ Clarity of Proposal
§ Sustainability
§ Goals and Evaluation
§ Project Financing
o Committee of three (3) make recommendations for funding to Parks & Recreation Commission.
• Contra Costa County Fish & Wildlife Committee
o No scoresheet; rather, at the first meeting, the Committee gives each project a plus (+), minus (-) or question mark (?) to indicate a recommendation for full or no funding or if there is a need for more information.
o At second meeting, Committee reviews new information and makes final recommendations for Board of Supervisors.
o The Committee tries to fairly recommend projects throughout the county (by region).
• Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission (Refer to Attachment)
o Application Assessment Criteria:
§ Meets CDFG Code 13101
§ Work proposed is feasible
§ Work benefits the local ecology
§ Work benefits local communities
§ Applicant(s) work(s) well and cooperatively with related agencies
§ Proposed activities represent the “best use” of limited funds
o Application Assessment Criteria includes Ways to Measure It and Ranking (-5 through 5) with descriptions for how to rank.
o Scoring Sheet includes space for additional comment for qualitative analysis in addition to the criteria scores.
Some Ideas for Improving the Grant Award Process
1. Two-Meeting Award Process
• In first meeting, review applications, hear presentations (optional), ask questions of applicants.
• In second meeting, review any new information as applicable, and deliberate on funding recommendations. Applicants may attend that meeting as it is a public hearing, but they would not be called upon for new information.
2. Set Caps for Grant Awards by Category
• Based on average annual awards by category over most recent (five) 5 years (and assumption of consistent awards fund of $75,000 per year):
o Education 53% ($40,000 cap)
§ Four (4) grants of $10,000 each, or
§ Five (5) grants of $8,000 each
o Wildlife 21% ($16,000 cap)
§ Includes direct care and enforcement, miscellaneous
§ Two (2) grants of $8,000, or
§ Three (3) grants of $5,300
o Restoration 17% ($13,000 cap)
§ One (1) grant of $13,000, or
§ Two (2) grants of $6,500
o Research 8% ($3,000 cap) or
§ One (1) grant of $3,000
3. Set Caps for Grant Awards Based on Award Level
• “Large”: $10,001 to $15,000
o On average over last five years, there were four (4) applications requesting a “large” grant. On average, the WCC awarded two (2) “large” grants each year.
o 1-2 “large” grants per year
• “Medium”: $5,001 to $10,000
o On average over last five years, there were two (2) applications requesting a “medium” grant. On average, the WCC awarded four (4) “medium” grants each year.
o 3-4 “medium” grants per year
• “Small”: $5,000 or less
o On average over last five years, there was one (1) application requesting a “small” grant per year. On average, the WCC awarded two (2) “small” grants each year.
o 1-2 “small” grants per year
4. Consider Adopting Assessment Criteria
• Adapt and adopt criteria and rubric from Mendocino County FWC to inform Commission funding recommendations.