Council approves $94,968 grant to Lead for Life after questions about vendor listings and oversight
Loading...
Summary
The council voted 4–2 to accept nearly $95,000 in FY26 community reinvestment funds for Lead for Life, but several members pressed the local management board on vetting, oversight and why outdated facility names appeared in the application.
The County Council approved resolution 99‑2025 on July 15 to accept $94,968.80 in FY26 community reinvestment and repair funds for Lead for Life, Inc., but the vote followed detailed questions from council members about vetting and program oversight.
Stephanie King, director of the Wicomico Partnership for Families and Children (the local management board), told the council Lead for Life has been a vendor on other local programs and the resolution corrects an earlier paperwork error on the awarded amount. "Lead for Life actually has been our vendor in other programs," King said, and she described established monthly financial oversight, quarterly site visits and pre/post participant surveys used to measure results.
Concerns raised and staff responses - Legitimacy and addresses: Council members said the vendor’s brief included references to facilities such as a state prison at 302 Pacific Avenue and Poplar Hill prerelease, which at least one member said is closed. King acknowledged the listed locations and said Lead for Life provides services to detention populations and that the board had vetted applicants; she offered to provide redacted vetting documentation and scoring sheets to the council. - Oversight and performance measurement: King described two site visits per quarter, monthly financial oversight of invoices and requirement for pre/post surveys of participants as the board’s monitoring practice.
Vote and outcome The council approved resolution 99‑2025 (accept grant funds and approve Lead for Life as a vendor for the local management board) by a 4‑to‑2 vote. Council members requested that the administration and the local management board provide redacted vetting and scoring materials and clarify the addresses and sites listed in the application.
Why it matters The resolution authorizes using community reinvestment funds (a portion of locally distributed cannabis excise proceeds and transfer‑tax‑related funds used for community projects) for services aimed at reentry and other targeted interventions. Council scrutiny reflects broader concerns about vendor vetting, use of public funds and ensuring program performance and geographic eligibility.
Next steps King agreed to supply the council with the vetting and scoring documents (with redactions as needed) and to follow up on zoning and site‑address questions for the facilities listed in Lead for Life’s application. Council members said they will monitor the program’s quarterly reports and performance measures.
