Committee hears grants update; staff cites delays in Allcove, EMPath and community advocacy portfolios
Loading...
Summary
Staff told the Budget and Fiscal Advisory Committee that Allcove sites and EMPath grants face construction and permitting delays and that some community advocacy contracts need documentation updates; staff said extensions and reversion protections reduce the risk of funds reverting to the state.
Committee members on April 16 received an updated grants and contracts expenditure list and a focused briefing on programs experiencing delays. Lauren Quintero said staff had revised the expenditure list to include written updates and noted programs marked delayed include Allcove, EMPath cohorts and the community advocacy FY 2024–25 portfolio.
Quintero explained the criteria for a program to be marked delayed: milestones and payment schedules in the original agreement must be at risk and some action is needed such as contract extensions or reversion-date adjustments. On Allcove, staff cited delays securing sites, completing site development and staffing; an extension request was under budget consideration that would shift the reversion date from June 30, 2026, to June 30, 2027.
On EMPath grants (2022 and 2023 cohorts), Quintero said construction and permitting setbacks — demolition challenges, permitting delays and extended inspections — had delayed implementation but that many sites are expected to complete construction by fall 2026 and spending will increase once sites are operational. For community advocacy contracts, she said delays largely reflect the commission’s transition to improved monitoring templates and documentation under a quality-assurance initiative, and that staff are partnering with grantees to clear the backlog.
Commissioners asked several clarifying questions: whether Stanford’s technical-assistance contract covers intellectual property and final reporting, how the $9 million technical-assistance figure is allocated between Allcove and CYBHI, whether reimbursement for construction grants is milestone-based, and what ‘‘reversion’’ means for unspent dollars. A representative involved in the Allcove technical assistance (identified in meeting materials as the Stanford contract lead) explained Stanford holds copyrights to the model materials and the commission currently holds the trademark with plans to return it after agreements expire; roughly $4.15 million of the technical assistance was for Allcove and approximately $5 million for CYBHI. Staff confirmed construction-related awards use milestone-based reimbursement and that reverted funds would be swept by the state controller’s office into the Behavioral Health Services Fund.
Staff said they would provide follow-up details requested by commissioners — including the Stanford subcontractor/evaluation partner, subcontract amounts, and whether site funds are for leasehold vs. acquisition — and expect to clear some of the documentation backlog in the coming weeks.
Next steps: staff will track extension requests, confirm the Stanford subcontractor and subcontract amounts, and return with updated appendix materials and procurement documentation.
