Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Eligibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Members press for transparency after funding tied to Walker or Oxford accreditation
Summary
Committee members asked whether capital grants and voucher funds effectively limit awards to Walker‑accredited providers or Oxford House; Representative Davis and others said Walker or Oxford accreditation were the two state-recognized mechanisms but that many providers could compete if accredited.
During Q&A on HCA's CERS plan update, Malika raised concerns that the Commerce grants appeared to be granted in partnership with a single entity and asked, "So only Walker can have money to do recovery housing?" Michelle and committee staff deferred detailed operational answers to Commerce and HCA presenters, and Representative Lauren Davis explained the accreditation context: "So I'm from the capital budget committee. So there are only 2 types of accredited recovery residences in Washington State. There's Oxford House and then there's residences, accredited by Walker." She said the capital-budget provision requires an accrediting mechanism, which is why Walker-accredited providers and Oxford House were the two named pathways and argued that together the two mechanisms cover hundreds of homes statewide.
Davis and others emphasized the intent was to ensure state funds support residences that meet basic standards rather than unaccredited operations. Committee members continued to press for clarification about competitive processes, whether nonprofit landlords could purchase homes to lease to Oxford House, and whether funding conditions would limit program models that offer non‑punitive responses to return to use. The committee requested additional information on eligibility, procurement and how Walker's role in outreach or partnership would be operationalized.
