Council members continued a multi‑year discussion about consolidating city violence‑interruption and hospital‑based intervention grants into a single programmatic home to improve coordination, data collection and contracting.

The discussion traced a long history: two city programs now provide overlapping services — the Attorney General’s office grants for Cure the Streets‑style interrupters and other city programs housed in the Mayor’s Office. Committee members said outside reviews and grant monitoring raised questions about inconsistent grant administration, contracting delays and gaps in follow‑up with clients. One committee report found the Attorney General’s grants had faster grant roll‑out but other agencies, such as ones in the Mayor’s office, had different strengths.

The committee initially proposed dissolving the duplicate structures and moving violence‑interruption grant management to a single home. The plan in draft would: (1) preserve community‑based grantmaking consistent with an evidence‑based model (e.g., Cure Violence principles), (2) maintain hospital‑based intervention programs with strong links to trauma‑informed care, and (3) create a short transition team composed of council, executive and grantee representatives to manage contracting and performance standards.

Responses were mixed. The Attorney General’s office and some long‑standing grantees opposed immediate dissolution, citing implementation risks and the need to preserve existing care and contracts. The mayor’s office supported an eventual consolidation but pressed for an implementation timeline and written commitments from the Attorney General on grant standards and operational handoffs. Several council members said they would only support consolidation if it includes a legally binding, time‑bound transition plan, clear metrics for grant performance and a pledge that current grantees retain operating funds through the transition.

Why it matters: Consolidation can reduce duplication, improve data and ensure consistent performance standards, but it also risks disrupting services for people at immediate risk unless the transition is carefully managed.

Ending: The committee kept the pathways funding transfer in place for administrative reasons but asked agency leads to return with a detailed transition plan that includes staffing, grant timelines, data standards and assurances to existing grantees; members requested quarterly progress reports.