Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Larimer County behavioral health staff propose renewal streamlining and tiered grants for Impact Fund
Summary
Behavioral Health Services presented data from six years of the Impact Fund and recommended procedural changes for the 2025 grant cycle: earlier application dates, four clear funding tiers, more budget flexibility, and a pilot renewal process to allocate roughly half the 2025 dollars to multi‑year‑style renewals for proven grantees.
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Larimer County Behavioral Health Services officials outlined proposed administrative changes to the county’s Impact Fund at a Feb. 12 work session, saying the recommendations respond to six years of grant data and rising application demand.
The proposal in brief: Amy Martinis, director of Behavioral Health Services, and Jessica Plummer, the Impact Fund program manager, told the board the county has invested about $14.7 million through the Impact Fund in 228 grants to 72 unique organizations since 2019. For the 2025 cycle the department expects about $2.8 million to award; Plummer said requests in 2024 totaled about $7.5 million. She said roughly 70% of awards in prior years have been continuation requests from previous grantees and about 50% of awards have been partial awards.
Why change the process: Plummer said the growing number of applications (84 last year) and the time required from volunteer reviewers and staff—about six hours per application—has created administrative strain and uneven results. “We want to reduce that because it causes extra work for our grantee partners as well as ourselves,” Plummer said, describing a goal to cut reviewer workload and reduce the share of partial awards.
Key recommendations presented: - Shift the application timeline two weeks earlier (targeting a May 13–June 13 window) so closing dates fall on a weekday and reviewers have more time. - Offer budget and objectives workshops and applicant supports to improve application quality. - Increase allowable line‑item flexibility in grant agreements (the presentation said county counsel has drafted language to raise existing $1,000 variance limits for certain budget items) while maintaining fiscal stewardship. - Create four clear annual funding tiers for this cycle ($25,000, $50,000, $75,000, $100,000) to reduce the number of requests that fall into a high‑dollar range that reviewers are reluctant to fund for only one year. Staff said larger, deeper investments will be addressed separately in a future plan for multi‑year funding. - Pilot a renewal pathway for established, well‑performing grantees: eligibility would require being a current grantee with five or more prior awards, four or more final reports demonstrating program stability and objective attainment, and current financial reporting. Plummer said the department would allocate roughly $1.4 million (about half of the 2025 portfolio) for renewal‑eligible organizations if the board approves the pilot.
Scope and tradeoffs: Plummer and Martinis emphasized that the renewal pilot is intended for 2025 as an operational test and not a permanent, automatic multi‑year commitment. Staff said the renewal approach would both reduce reviewer time (Plummer estimated about 90 reviewer hours saved, roughly a 20% reduction in workload) and increase predictability for organizations that rely on Impact Fund dollars. Presenters noted the department will keep an open annual arm of the grant program for new applicants and promising start‑ups so that new ideas and emerging needs can still be funded.
Commissioner response and next steps: Commissioners expressed broad support for the proposed pilot and asked staff to proceed with detailed operational work and communication plans. Staff said they will bring a follow‑up work session in April to discuss options for multi‑year funding and that they will publish applicant guidance, hold webinars and workshops, and send direct notices to current and past grantees about the 2025 changes.
What was not decided: No formal board vote was taken at the work session. Staff sought and received direction to continue planning the pilot and to return with recommended implementation steps and communications.

