Process and rules · start the paper trail
The application process tells us what DYCD was supposed to evaluate.
This page is not here to explain procurement for its own sake. It is here to identify the rules, documents, promises, and missing records families need in order to uncover what went wrong.
The core problem
Parents were affected by the application outcome, but they were not part of the provider-selection process.
Providers applied through PASSPort. They selected competition pools, selected schools, ranked those schools, entered maximum slots, answered school-specific questions, and uploaded documents. The public still needs to see whether those applications actually support the awards now being imposed on schools.
Who was allowed to apply?
The RFP set minimum eligibility rules. If an organization did not meet them, the proposal could be deemed non-responsive and rejected before scoring.
Not-for-profit organization
Applicants had to be nonprofit organizations. This matters because families need to know whether every awardee met the threshold requirements before DYCD moved them forward.
Approved HHS prequalification
Applicants had to have approved Health and Human Services prequalification in PASSPort by the required deadline. Expired or incomplete status could affect eligibility.
Eligible school list
The selected school had to be on Attachment 05’s eligible school list. If a school was moved, renamed, removed, or added by addendum, the record should show how that affected applications.
Records families need
For each affected school: all applicants, eligibility screening notes, responsiveness determinations, HHS prequalification status, and any cure or correction history.
Eligibility could have been treated as a checkbox instead of a safeguard.
- A provider could be allowed through despite incomplete or outdated PASSPort/HHS status.
- Some organizations could be given correction opportunities while others were rejected.
- School-list changes in addenda could have affected who was eligible to apply where.
- Responsiveness decisions could have been made without a clear, consistent written record.
How providers selected schools
Providers did not simply apply to “run afterschool.” They applied within competition pools and then identified specific schools they wanted to serve.
Select competition pool
A provider chose a competition pool, generally organized by borough/community district and program type.
Select eligible schools
The provider selected schools inside that pool from the official eligible schools list.
Rank school preferences
The provider ranked selected schools 1, 2, 3, etc. Those rankings showed the provider’s preference, not the school’s.
Enter maximum slots
The provider stated the maximum number of students it could support at each school.
Explain school fit
The provider wrote school-specific experience and partnering responses for each selected school.
Why this matters: a provider may have selected many schools and ranked them by its own preference. Families need to know whether a given school was a true proposed fit, a lower-ranked backup, or an allocation result.
A school could have been treated as an interchangeable slot.
- A provider may have ranked a school low but still received it.
- A school community may have wanted one provider while the selected provider barely prioritized that school.
- DYCD may have used provider distribution or capacity to override school fit without explaining the tradeoff.
- Maximum slot numbers may not reflect the actual unique students served by middle-school clubs, teams, and rotating activities.
What applications were supposed to prove
The application should contain the evidence DYCD used to judge capacity, quality, staffing, disability access, partnerships, and budget realism.
| Application area | What the provider had to show | What families should now ask |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational experience | Experience operating afterschool or similar services, community connections, monitoring, attendance, and quality improvement. | Did the selected provider have stronger site-specific experience than the provider families wanted to keep? |
| Service requirements | Recruitment, retention, SEL curriculum, required content areas, outcomes, and program model. | What exact activities did the selected provider promise, and do they match the programs now at risk? |
| Staffing | Staff selection, retention, training, supervision, and professional development. | Did the provider promise to interview or retain incumbent staff? Did DYCD score workforce continuity? |
| Disability access | Inclusion, accessibility, reasonable accommodations, universal design, and support for students with disabilities. | Where is the written school-specific IEP/504 transition plan and who is accountable for it? |
| Community partnerships | Three community partnerships or subcontractor relationships that enhance services. | Were the partnerships real, local, funded, and relevant, or just paper attachments? |
| Budget | A budget narrative and staffing/service assumptions within the RFP funding structure. | Can the awardee actually deliver the same level of programming, hours, supervision, and activities with the proposed budget? |
The written application may not match what families are now being promised.
- The proposal may not actually guarantee staff retention, sports, arts, debate, theater, late pickup, or disability continuity.
- Scorers may have credited vague language as if it were a concrete school-specific plan.
- Community partnerships may exist on paper without proving real capacity at the school site.
- Disability language may be generic instead of an operational plan for IEP/504 transitions and behavior support.
Round 2 is a major accountability point
DYCD issued addenda and created a new round. That means proposals from the original round did not automatically carry over.
It still had to submit to Round 2
Providers could duplicate some prior information, but they had to create and submit a new Round 2 proposal for consideration.
Drafts were canceled
Round 1 draft proposals were not enough. A new response had to be completed and submitted in the updated round.
Possible issue to investigate
Were all providers given equal practical ability to respond to the new round? Did any incumbent or community-preferred provider lose information, miss a deadline, face PASSPort issues, or submit a proposal that was later treated differently?
Round 2 could have changed the playing field.
- Providers may have believed Round 1 work carried over when it did not.
- Drafts may have been canceled and not fully recreated.
- Competition-pool or school-selection data may not have copied correctly.
- Addenda may have changed rules too late for equal, practical response.
The records that would reveal what went wrong
The application process creates a paper trail. If DYCD releases the paper trail, families can test whether the awards followed the rules.
Who applied for each affected school?
Families need the complete applicant list by school, not just the winning provider.
Which proposals were deemed non-responsive?
If a provider was removed before scoring, the record should show why and whether the rule was applied consistently.
What did each provider promise for staffing and continuity?
This is where DYCD should be able to show whether staff retention, warm handoffs, and program continuity were actually considered.
What did each provider promise for disability access?
Families need the provider’s disability-access narrative, inclusion plan, training promises, and any site-specific accommodation commitments.
What school-specific answers were shared with NYCPS?
The School CBO Partnership Profile questions were supposed to matter. Families need to see what schools were asked to review.
Were addenda, school-list corrections, and Round 2 changes handled fairly?
When schools were moved, names corrected, deadlines changed, or proposal fields modified, the record should show how DYCD protected fairness.
The record may reveal a gap between rule compliance and child safety.
- DYCD may have evaluated generic proposal language rather than real school-specific transition capacity.
- Disability safeguards may have been reduced to title-only compliance, such as naming an Inclusion Coordinator without meaningful qualifications or accountability.
- Families may have been told “there is a process” without being shown the actual process, timeline, denial rules, or appeal path.
- The award may look compliant on paper while creating foreseeable disruption for students, staff, and disabled families.
How this page should help expose the record
This page should become a living investigative map: every official rule should point to the missing document that proves whether DYCD followed it.
PASSPort flow visuals
Show the exact screens where providers selected competition pools, schools, ranking, maximum slots, and school-specific text fields.
Rule → record → failure point
For every rule, list what the RFP required, what document should exist, and what it would prove or disprove.
Apply rules to real schools
For each affected school, show applicants, awardee, incumbent, known opposition, requested records, and unresolved issues.