One. Good morning, good people. We are here for a follow-up conversation regarding the FY26 operating budget and amendments and the FY25 to 30 capital improvement program for the Department of Health and Human Services. And I want to thank everybody again for their patience as we are heading towards the committee finish line. And will now turn it over to Ms. Clemens Johnson to tee this packet up and what we will be discussing this morning. Oh and of course we are joined by Councilmember Lutke and Councilmember Ming thank you for joining us again and we will soon be joined by Council Member Sales. Good morning and thank you, Chair Albinos, and good morning to the rest of the committee members. This discussion is regarding three amendments that the County Executive Transmitted on April 24th. It crosses three service areas, aging and disability, a recommended 1% rate increase for the D.D. providers, for services to end and prevent homelessness, two divergent specialists, brokers, and for public health services, the addition of the community reinvestment and repair funds. With that, we'll stop to see if there's any questions or we can start. Okay. We can start. Okay. On page one of your packet begins the proposed the aging and disability 1% rate increase for the DD providers. The requested amount is 2.8 2 million 829 840 dollars. The executive has proposed this one time increase for the DD providers. The following information in your packet states why this amendment was recommended that during the 2025 state legislative session, a 1% rate increase for the DD providers was proposed but ultimately removed in the final state budget. We did talk about this at the aging and disability meetings when we talked about the DD supplement. So the increase of 1% that was not approved at the state level was a total of 28.8 million for the state and all of the providers, but the 1% the calculation of the 1% including in your packet on table two was 2.8 million for DD providers in Montgomery County. So the executive is proposing that he utilize county dollars to help support that rate increase that the providers were supposed to receive and that it would distribute proportionally based on the same manner that we do the supplement. So these were like two different things. We have the supplement that we do annually, but this is a proposed one time rate increase, recognizing that they did not get the increase from the state. So in your packet, I detailed the work that the committee did on April 25th in approving the supplemental amount. So the total, if this amendment is approved, the total FY26 increase from the county for D.D. providers would be 3,480,666 dollars. But county staff recommends that the committee evaluate whether the state will fund in an equivalent provider rate increase in FY 27 as projected by the executive in the text of the amendment. If state funding is not approved in FY27, it may create significant challenges for providers who will have adapted to the one-time funding increase and careful planning would be needed to mitigate those potential negative impacts for FY27. So based on the council's president's guidance on affordability, Council's staff has recommended that thisornado for the Ability. Council's TAF has recommended that this increase be included in tranches. The tranche amounts are at the top of page three and they are broken out evenly. And I am available to answer any questions. Thank you. Team, if you all could provide some context and background, that of course was a wonderful summary, but we're just looking to hear more from the executive branch on this that'd be great. Yes, good morning everyone. My name is Kim Mayo Administrative for Community Sport Network. I'm here on behalf of Dr. Patrice Pinkie. So this amendment is going forward because as council staff mentioned originally there was going to be a 1% rate increase for our D.D. providers, but unfortunately in the Governor's second amendment he removed that 1% amount. So in response to that, the amendment is for 1% of the total D.D.A. revenues. This is just an estimate at this point because the actuals we have are actually from FY23 so as you'll see in the chart, we assume moderate rate increases and And based on that, we are thinking that the revenue is going to be about $282 million. And that's how we got to the 1%. With this being one time only, we'll actually account for this separately. We were talking about that. Have this be a separate line and a purchase order. So it's clear it's not going to be assumed within the ongoing DDSUplament amount amount, the 22 million that we already have. I appreciate that, Ms. Mayo. So I know we don't have providers here, but we're all very familiar with their work and obviously very supportive of it. And I'm so proud that the county has really stepped up and provided supplemental support for this incredibly important sector of our nonprofit community for decades now. Could you all talk a little bit about what happens if the FY27 budget doesn't come to fruition, these organizations come to count on this additional 1%, which would be totally understandable. And what if anything you can comment on, on how we can help ensure this truly is one time or not. I think right now we're doing based on our best estimate and our best understanding of the situation. So if the 1% increase is not included in the budget, you are right and the council's staff report was right is that it would almost be a reduction for the DD provides at that point. At that, we would examine the situation again, I am sure, of what's going on. But the assumption that's built in is that they are going to get at least a 1% increase in next year, and that would sort of blunt any, there wouldn't be a net reduction in their revenue in the following year, and FY27. And you may not have an answer to this, but could you talk if you can, operationally what it would mean to the DD community, if they did not receive this additional 1%, obviously fewer support services would be able to be provided, but any information or details, what precipitated the concern of the executive branch to supplement beyond the obvious, which is just to make them whole, but operationally, how would this have impacts? So I think, like historically, the state has provided a rate increase every year. Usually it's about three or four percent, and then as we mentioned, it was only one percent this year. So the thought is between the one percent, not getting the one percent, and then the other reductions that are going on at state level as well, as well, even though a lot of it was restored, in particular geographic rate differential is still going to be an impact as well. So historically the DDSupplement has been primarily used for direct support professional wages as we know. So that's the hope. I would just add on it. I think that the thought too is that just inflation increases to staff cost are going up. The DDSufflement that's been provided by the county is traditionally just supplemented any increases and stuff provided by the state as well. And so without that by the state, it makes it harder for the providers to provide any type of compensation changes to their employees or even to keep up with compensation changes and benefits and stuff like that that are going on. going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to compensation changes and benefits and stuff like that that are going on. Colleagues, questions, comments, and then I'll give my thoughts on the staff recommendation. Okay. All right. So I, we've heard from these organizations we know how hard they worked to get the funding back into their accounts, and we heard the horror stories of what would have transpired had the funding not been there. We also know that there was deep frustration within the community that at the more than 11th hour commitments that they felt had been made were not adhered to. And so I think this will have potentially significant operational impacts on these organizations. Organizations that we know are providing a service that the county can't provide directly and that these organizations are in a better position to be able to provide. We also know that with the looming cuts to Medicare Medicaid and what is happening at the federal level, that also is going to have a cascading impact. And so to the degree to which we can support these organizations at the local level, it further demonstrates our commitment to them, but also helps them ensure smooth operations. So for those reasons, I respect the recommendation of the tranches, but I would prefer personally to go with the executives' recommendation of 1%. With this caveat, and I, the Councilmember Mankard, me say this yesterday extensively. We're going to be deliberating next week on the income tax increase. If that does not go through, all bets are off. And everything, every committee has deliberated and discussed will need to and obviously will be reevaluated. And so whether something is on the reconciliation list or not, if again, that tax increase doesn't go through, or even if it doesn't go through to the level that has been proposed, adjustments will be need to be made across the board for everything we've talked about so far. So it's almost like I think everything might be on the reconciliation list, depending on whether or not that happens. So just something to note. Colleagues, thoughts, comments on my thoughts and comments. Sure. Thanks, Mr. Lugin. Thank you. Yeah, no, I agree 100%. I'm very, very aware of the challenges that this community is facing. And again, a battle which I believe at the state level could have started differently and perhaps involved more discussions, shall we say, prior to the legislative session, starting prior to the budget being introduced that might have emeliorated a lot of the anxiety and fear and worry that occurred within the DD community in trying to make sure that the sky wasn't falling, right? That being said, I'm also extremely cognizant of the fact that we are all living collectively in a really ever-shifting landscape, economically, financially, just what's impacting our families. And so to chair Albernars' point, we are still going to have to do a lot of difficult, difficult work, not unlike what the General Assembly faced in finally reconciling the state budget overall, not just with respect to the D.D. community, but the whole complete picture and do the best we can. So I concur with the chair's recommendation and but also I'm very keenly aware that we have a lot more work to do over the next few weeks. Thank you. That's from sales. Thank you for the the digital update. You know, it's very disappointing because I know how hard this community works and how important these small increments of an increase are to the low wages that they're already receiving and so I also concur with the chairman's recommendation. And I don't know if we can put anything in the payment information that goes out. I don't know if it's a separate, almost like the earned income tax credit match that we give is that is is that how these how the money will get to the workers like how are we going to notify the community that you know you're getting this increase now but next year we may not be able to I think we will communicate it as part of our it it'll be an amendment to their contracts. We do an amendment to their contracts based on the rate each year. And we would, as Ms. Mayo said, we would separate it out on the purchase order. The purchase order would have two lines. One for their regular amount, one for the supplemental amount. To sort of make it more discreet. It'll be separate in our budget. It'll be sort of a little separate. So we will communicate that to our best ability that this is a separate. This is sort of the the supplemental one-time only payment versus the regular payment that will be provided to them. Yeah, this is a challenging time for everyone, but especially this community. So I appreciate the county executive's recommendation. I think without objection we'll concur with the executive's recommendation here. Noted. Okay, we will meet you to item 1.2, which is services to end in prevent homelessness to diversion specialist brokers at 177,000. So through the amendment, the executive has proposed two contract diversion specialists brokers. The diversion, so through staff, diversion is a strategic intervention that helps individuals who recently lost their housing, identify and access safe alternative to emergency shelter. So each of those diversion specialists manage an average caseload of a 60 individuals per per month, engaging in person-centered, strength-based conversations to explore immediate housing solutions. So the divergent specialist works reduce the number of individuals engaging with the crisis center, and decrease the inflow to shelters that are currently above capacity. So DHHS delivers divergent services through three primary methods in terms of how they employ staff. So there are two FTE social work merit diversion specialists. Currently, one of those merit positions is vacant. There are two brokers for diversions that are grant funded. One of those positions are vacant, but it just became vacant last week. And then there are five different version specialists maintained through a contract to operate the central intake and divergent program. So in total there are nine diversion specialists if these two positions are added it would be 11. So the proposed positions would be ongoing contractual staff and the cost per position is $88,550 each. Based on the council president's guidance, council staff has recommended tranching these positions. So they are listed in your packet of tranch one and tranch two. And I can address any questions. Thank you. Thank you. We've had several extensive conversations about the value and importance of prevention-based services and you know this is consistent with those conversations but I would afford the opportunity to chief home to talk about this and from the administration's perspective and anything you want to share that might be helpful. Correct, that's the first thing. Thank you really appreciate it. Christine Hong chief of services to end and prevent homelessness. And if you want to. Yeah, I believe one correction. The two brokers that there are there currently are the grant-funded ones that would go away. So these two would replace those. It wouldn't increase the number of diversion specialists, so we keep the number of diversion specialists the same as it is currently. Yeah, and this is of course at a time when homelessness is increasing, very important because what ends up happening when we don't have the capacity to make the intervention of diversion is we end up seeing people outside and who don't have shelter and our shelters are already overburdened. This is an intervention where we are diversion specialists work to connect individuals presenting a need of shelter to existing supports. It can be very effective. This past year, year to date, we have diverted 176 individuals. And that is the first I'll talk about the fiscal impact, and then I'll talk about the human impact. So it costs us $79.24 to shelter an individual. That's per night. So annually, that's $28,922,000 per year. and we do have individuals who do have longer-term experiences of homelessness because of the barriers to get them rehoused. So helping them to connect with someone in their support network is more effective and it is less impactful on them and on their health. For to shelter someone for six months, to shelter the 176, I should say that we diverted, it would cost us $2.5 million. And for 12 months, it would be $5 million, which we're talking about 176 people. That's similar to the size of Neville, 200 beds, which has a more than $6 million contract. And And what I'm concerned about is that if we continue to see increasing demand for shelter, that we're going to have to build new shelter, we do not want to invest in more shelter. If we can use a lower costing intervention. So really important work that is done, as far as the human toll, again, diversion is important because the impact is so much less on them. They are still losing their housing, but then to be connected with someone they know that they're familiar with who can support them in other ways has shown that the impacts on their health, on their outcomes are far less severe. And then in addition to that, we know that based on our most recent point in time count January 29th, 2025 that about 35% of the individuals that we encounter in experiencing homelessness cannot state, do not state that they're from Montgomery County. We still want to serve them and this is one intervention where we can and we can work with them to connect them where they have the most support. It's really important that we do that because it is a regional issue. And these specialists also alleviate the burden on our crisis center staff, which is huge as well. Many of you have already heard that at the end of hypothermia season that there was a group of people because they did not have shelter. We're sleeping on the floor of the crisis center, which we really want to avoid at all costs. And that is why invited Chief Martin to join us to talk more about the impacts because they do. The two teams work very collaboratively, but you all know that our crisis center therapists already have to respond to every crisis that's coming to them. So if we can do diversion, we want to do that, and we need to have this full team, which we need this team to do that work as effectively as we can. So with that, I'm going to pause and pass it to my colleague, Chief Martin. Before we pass it over, Councillor Melliquia has a question. Yeah, I just think this is important and, you know, unfortunately not everybody is as person focused as Montgomery County, right? And not everybody takes that view. And so sometimes I think people, perhaps who are less concerned about humanity, go, well,, why do they have to do that? And the answer is you are obligated by law to serve those who are presenting in our community. Is that right? Yes. Yes. And it's not optional. And we don't get to say, well, do you live in Montgomery County? Where did you live? You're here and you need help and you're on the street and you have no house. And we have an obligation under health and safety and welfare obligations to make sure we do something, right? Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. I know we don't always have the millions watching at home as sometimes we joke about, but I think it's really important because I think that message is lost on a lot of people. I wish it wasn't. And I wish folks would just say, yeah, but that's the right and humane thing to do. But also we're obligated to do it. Yes, yes. And this team serves anyone who is experiencing homelessness in Montgomery County regardless of where they're connected. It is one of the programs that does that. And for that reason, a loss of staff makes it very difficult because again, it's that open-ended caseload where they're serving everyone who's entering the crisis center or calling. They can be accessed either way. And so I appreciate you highlighting that. And also, I mean, I know because in the way that it's presented in the packet, it talks about people who are newly experiencing homelessness, and certainly we want to try to address as soon as something happens, right? But this team also helps those who are having recurring homelessness, right? Like they don't just give up. It's not like, well, we met you a month ago and you didn't take our help then. You keep trying, right? We do. Okay. We do and we do also when they are in shelter. Also when they're in motels, we are continually having the conversation about, is there someone you can reconnect with? And sometimes it takes the trust for that person to say, yes, there is a family member I'm estranged with. And sometimes even more time for them to feel even comfortable having the conversation with that family member or friend. So it is a process that is ongoing. however, it is most effective at the beginning before they enter our system. Right. But it doesn't mean we don't try. No, we do not stop trying. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Chief Hwang. Hi, for the record, Monica Martin, Chief of Behavioral Health and Crisis Services, Chief Hwang said it beautifully that, along from the, you know, aside from the human impact that has on the residents that we are legally obligated to serve and even those that are not county residents are legally obligated to serve and even those that are not county residents are legally obligated to support and serve. I just want to further highlight, I think you're all aware of this. All the reasons why an investment in diversion is an investment in the behavioral health system of crisis care here from Montgomery County and a reduction in diversion services as a direct impact on that as well. As you know, the crisis center is the place for people to come to for anything that they define as a crisis. So whether that's homelessness, whether it is the needs that come up after hours for our adult protective services system or child welfare services system, outside of regular business hours. They are the first responders for all of those situations and more. And so if we have a reduction in our diversion center staffing, which is just a few feet down the hall from the crisis center waiting area, and in times of high volume in particular, those staff do not have the capacity to service everybody coming in. What happens at the end of the work day is that they all come over to the crisis center lobby and again we are privileged to serve our residents if that's the case. But it is a disservice to our residents to have our behavioral health specialists being using that capacity not because they don't want to, not because they don't feel privileged to do that. They've got an excellent training and diversion from, from staff and the diversion center staff in order to do that, but because they have so many other demands placed on them. And with our increasing focus on having our clinicians and our peer specialists out in the community, in the overnight hours, it just, it really just puts a strain on the system overall. We had about, good group of about 14 or 15 individuals that were staying overnight in a crisis center lobby for the first couple of weeks of April. And if you, I know you're all in a crisis center, that's not a large lobby, so that basically filled up the room. We're still at about four to five now, so it's in a different place. But that's with the existing staffing that the diversion center does have. Currently. Yep. Councilor. And this has other costs and impacts across our county service system as well in the form of within the public safety sphere as well, right? So this impact service calls for fire and rescue and an impact service calls for law enforcement and others who may need to go out and help intervene. Even our emergency call center, because sometimes people call 911 for things that aren't really 911 functions, but that still has an impact, right? Exactly. Right, so having these specialists available to do the work they do as part of that full ecosystem is really critically important isn't it? Absolutely. So anything we can do to liberate them to focus entirely on that whenever possible. Again only supports and abulls and our crisis care system and makes it more effective. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Murciel, do you have any questions? No questions. It's a replacement of contractors. We know the work is necessary. You've shown that it's working and anything to relieve the capacity at our crisis center is going to be helpful. And we're always more appreciative of connecting people with permanent jobs instead of contractors. So I appreciate the recommendation and hopefully we can support it. Thank you, Catherine. I want to appreciate my colleagues and appreciate the work that's being done up here. I was surprised and a little concerned to learn that we were looking at going into the next year with two fewer diversion positions, one of our most economical interventions that we have at our disposal. And given what we are facing at this moment, and I was really glad to see that that is being remedied that we have the opportunity to make sure that that doesn't happen and to appreciate my colleagues for the emphasis that they're putting on this. Thank you. And obviously an important distinction that replaces existing positions. Just is a personnel matter. So I'm going to ask this at 30,000 feet. But how do you envision continuity of service with these positions and to the degree to which you can comment on that. So the diversion work is done in partnership with every mind who has the contract for the diversion. And so they have five diversion specialists and then it's the way that work evolved. I, Steph started, this was before I started with Seth with brokers because it was something we didn't have permanent funding for and it was a pilot. So as the work has evolved, we've seen that one, every mind does the work very effectively. And then two, it doesn't make sense to have a temporary member of the team. We want it to be one cohesive team doing the same work. They do do the same work, but they're in different systems. We're in our centralized case management system. Every mind is less familiar with that. We need to have a cohesion that works across both, really, we just need one team. So our intention is to, if this is approved, to add the funding to the every mine contract and they would recruit and have on their team permanently two additional members. So a team of seven diversion specialists. Great. That's really helpful. So I think it sounds like without objection we concur with the executive's recommendation on this one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do I turn the last item? The last item is the community reinvestment and repair funds. The amendment is for $2.5 million for FY26. This funding source is CRRF or state revenue. The funding will go into a county special fund for it to be utilized. The full council was briefed on this when the was briefed on the community reinvestment and repair funds when you approved the commission in July of 2024. So I'll briefly talk about what's in the packet, but I know the committee and your members are aware of it. So the community reinvestment fund referred to financial initiatives that allocate tax revenues or profits from legal well cannabis sales to support and uplift communities disproportionately impacted by cannabis, particularly marginalized or low income communities. As stated, this amendment provides 2.5 million for FY 26. These funds are restricted in the general fund and can only be used consistent with state and county law and that will be detailed in your packet. So the state passed the bill on July 1st of 2023. On page four of your staff report, there is a chart showing the proportion of cannabis charges by county, which is relative to the amount of funding that the county will receive. So Maryland imposes a 9% sales stack on adult use cannabis and per the statute statute, statute 35% of the proceeds are allocated to the community repair and reinvestment fund. So Montgomery County has the fifth largest proportion and so from that, that is how we are allocated the two and a half million I will note that the office of social equity that was established as part of The cannabis law Did a survey to find out how to best allocate the funds so on page five of your packet It just lists a few topics that they believe that they recommend that county prioritize. So that's mental health and harm reduction, education, and after-school programs, housing and unhoused prevention services, reentry and reintegration, adult professional development, entrepreneurship and economic development, nonprofit training and management, and workforce and development training. So the county will execute its funds through grants that will flow through the Office of Grants Management. So we will probably see that later this year with proposals that are chosen by the commission. Now as alluded to before, the commission was approved by the Council on July 16th, 2024. The commission consists of 13 voting members and one non-voting exo-efficient members. The commission will recommend to the Office of Grants Management to nonprofit organizations for community-based initiatives. So the details of what the details of what type of grant programming they create are listed within the packet. The commission members were finalized. I believe two to three months ago. And they have not begun meeting yet, but they are planning to meet, probably they said maybe starting May or June of this year. The detail of the budget is on page six, at the top of page six, to every your packet, and staff recommends to concur with the executive's recommendation. Any questions, comments, colleagues? I think without objection on that one. And that is the end of our amendments. There is one additional item in your packet on page six related to the Maryland Vietnamese Mutual Association contract for $89,941. The HHS committee briefly talked about this item on April 25th but was not able to finish the conversation. It was recommended to full council but since we were having this HHS committee meeting it was found that we could discuss it at this time in full detail. So council member Mink has provided a memo at circle 11 in your packet. She is requesting that the committee consider restoring the MVMAs, non-competitive contract, and removing the equivalent level of funding from the Healthy Communities Fund grant program. There is also background in your packet concerning the contract at circle 12 and 13, and I can address any further questions. Thank you. So we discussed this at our last session, obviously, and I just have a few thoughts. So MDMA, I've had the opportunity to see their work. They have been passionate advocates and as we stated in the last conversation, there aren't very many organizations serving this population in this space. And so it's important to have organizations that are willing and have the capability to serve various communities. But I also acknowledge and respect executive branch agencies' abilities to be able to carry out and monitor contracts and understand that there has been some dispute or questions and respect their ability to be able to make decisions such as the one that they have recommended for this year's operating budget, which my understanding does not prevent MVMA from seeking these funds from an alternative source, but it just means that they no longer would receive the contract directly, which understandably from their perspective creates great upheaval and concern, because I don't know exactly what the percentages of funding in their overall operating budget, but I have to assume that the county's investment and contribution is a very significant percentage of that overall budget. So Mr. Hodge, I'm going to put you a little bit on the spot, not in a negative way, of course, never in a negative way, but could you talk a little bit more? And I know this is sensitive. We're discussing contract issues. But in order for this body to have a robust conversation on what Councilmember Mink has suggested, I'd love to hear a little bit more about the conversations you've had with MVMA, where some of the issues may be, and any other thoughts the executive branch has on this particular issue. Mark Hodge, I'm the Chief Operating Officer for the Department of Health and Human Services. Conversations with them began this time last year when council restored the original cut that we'd asked. Partly, reason not partly, fully the reason why we asked for the cut last year was because they were performing services that were not part of the original contract and the original scope of the community grant that they had been receiving for many, many, many years. They had during COVID switched over to providing services to older adults and to provide language access services that was and the original scope was to provide tutoring. So because they switched, we offered to put that up for a cut last year. When's council restored that, we had another conversation with them to say, we're going to alter the contract to do what you say you're actually doing now. So we didn't use tutoring. Tutoring is not an HHS function generally, but some of the things that they were doing are. So we switched, we did amend the contract with those current funds for FY25 and had conversations with them about making sure that they are actually doing what is in the scope. They agreed to that, they signed off on the contract. And so we've had continuous conversations with them about making sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. Our contract monitors from the Asian American Health Initiative has worked very closely with them. We began to have some issues in November with them. They were not submitting their invoices for payment. We finally did get November invoices in January, so six months into the contract. And while they were performing the duties that were part of the scope of the contract, they were not meeting all of those obligations. So we continued to have conversations with them. As we came to have to make decisions for FY26, we realized that the money was important. services that were being offered were important, but to give them to an underperforming partner didn't make sense to us. So we decided that we would be better served by moving that money into the health communities fund, which is part of the Asian American Health Initiative, in which is available to all organizations to apply for every year. So MVMA does get $147,000 from that fund. They applied and are performing well using those funds for the scope of the grants that they said they would do. Moving this $89,000 into that fund makes it available again to them as well as others when it comes open on July 1st. So in addition to the $89,000 the MVMA would be losing from this particular contract, they're also having to go back and ask for the $147,000 as do all the other partners from this grant fund. And so from our perspective, the money is available. We want to make sure that it's equitable and fair to all of our partners to have access to that money, especially because with the money that they were getting previously, the $89,000, they weren't necessarily doing everything they were supposed to be doing with it. Thank you for that background. Council Member Mick, I really appreciate and respect your interest in this issue. I defer to you to provide comments, feedback, and any other information that you have that would help the committee. Great, thank you. Appreciate all that. I've been looking through their contracts to make sure that I understood as best I could as well. And you said that they were not serving seniors previously and that was something that they switched to during COVID but it looks like did I misunderstand? They began serving seniors during COVID and an after but their original contract was supposed to be for tutoring youth and so they just completely changed what the scope of the contract was on their own. I'm just a little confused about that because I'm looking at their contract from 2010 and their contract amendments from 2014 and both of those indicate that part of their what they're required to do is serve seniors as part of the GEPS program. There were some adjustments made, you know, tweaks made in the language, but let me just go back to Yeah, further 2014 contract amendments the contractor must provide monthly outreach Assistance and or resources to a minimum of 15 immigrant seniors living in Montgomery County So reaching at least 15 seniors per month which which they're well positioned to do, of course, because they hold a lot of events serving seniors through their other contracts and through their other work that they do as a nonprofit. I am particularly concerned about the possibility of them losing this contract because the work that they do and I have their report that they provided for their year to date as of March of this year. Through this contract is heavily, heavily connecting people to, yes, it includes the tutoring mentoring, which is really important and they are doing a significant amount of that as well. In fact, getting kids to come twice a week, it looks like multiple students who are coming twice a week for tutoring as somebody who has been a teacher and been a tutor. It is hard to get those kids to come back. It means you've really forged a relationship and you've with them and with their parents. You're making an impact. And that's what's happening. But in regards to the service to seniors, what they're doing largely is what has been asked of them in their contract, which is connecting them to these resources that are making sure that they're able to pay their bills, connecting them to Medicare, to Medicaid, translating, providing translation services for all of us connecting them, a lot of them being connected to social security. And so this is just even just looking at the economics. This seems to me like a really important asset for us because this is a population that This can't be done can't be done by an in-house by the county because this includes translation. And I know as many of us have been to NVMA events, like it really requires translation. And so, and it requires relationships and trust and as somebody who has an Asian mother also, not Vietnamese, but I know that the relationships and trust matter. Like you're just going to not go. If you don't have that, you're just not going to receive the services. And when language is an additional barrier, they have overcome that barrier, and they are serving a lot of people just in this time frame, 146 unduplicated clients. Now they are asked to serve 15 seniors per month. And I, you know, just in July alone, they, oops, I just closed my deck. But just in July alone, the first month that they're reporting for, I just, I went through and counted based on their results. It was 18 unduplicated seniors who they are ensuring are, you know, they're helping them to access federal, state, and local benefits and providing translation services as a means of doing so. Multiple of those seniors, they saw multiple times within that same month. So to me, and I went through each of the terms of their contract and I was adding it up and I'm just, I'm a little confused about, to me it's, it's looking like they're overperforming their, their contract. Is some of the report, it could some of the reporting be cleaned up? Yes, absolutely. I will give you that. It was not easy for me to go through and highlight and do the counting. There were ways in which it should be sorted with more clarity. There are some of the tags are other instead of saying gaps or team, and explain it, et cetera. But then it has a level of detail that says what they were doing under that other. So we can then sort it ourselves. And when we do that, it does seem to me that they are exceeding the terms of the contract. And the work that you were doing to make sure that we have the right contractors in place and they're, like, they're getting taxes paid or dollars. The scrutiny is deserved and we want that. Competitive grants are a good thing to have as a general rule, but we're going to benefit from that in most cases, right? But if we're losing a provider who has relationships, who has things that cannot be duplicated by another organization like the translation services, that's where I have major, major concerns. Again, especially because they are connecting people to like federal dollars, state dollars. That is a lot of what they are doing. These students who are coming routinely to them, so they, the MVMA did step back for some of their tutoring during COVID because MCPS received SR grant funds and was doing a bunch of high dosage tutoring. And so it made sense at that time for MVMA to say these students are able to access that through their schools, and we can focus our, we can kind of ramp up in some other areas. That is over now. And what they actually found, interestingly, was that a lot of the students that they were serving preferred to stay with their tutors anyway because of that cultural competency, the language, the parents are able to communicate with the tutors better. And so, I mean, that is a moment, I think, that does highlight the importance of having somebody who comes with the same background, provides the exact type of service that we so value in Montgomery County that is more than culturally competent, like these are the right people for these families. There is another, the over reporting, I saw that also, Why are they still including a contract requirement that they had in 2010, which is the new Americans advocacy services connecting people to citizenship, helping people go through that process. That was in their 2010 contract. It was removed in their 2014 contract. They have continued providing those services and listing them on their grant report. report They there's no need for them to do that. It is of course totally normal for nonprofits to be doing more things and what's required in the contract But they did not remove it from their reporting a Little a little sloppy maybe but but it doesn't impact the count, you know that they are exceeding their requirements that are in the contract. They are labeled properly as NAAS. So it's easy to just not count those. I'm glad that they're providing the services, but I don't think that we are doing the taxpayers any benefits by holding that against them, that they are doing those additional services and reporting them accurately as to what they are. If they were able to turn to the you know turn to the fund that their that their funds are being that these contract funds are being moved into and apply, I would be much less concerned. The issue is that they have another well-functioning program also which did win a grant has continued to win a grant through that same fund, and that brings them to the cap. I know that they have asked if they could go over the cap or if the cap could be increased so that they would be able to, they said, we don't have an issue going and competing there, even with this really vital program. But they were told, they were told which means that if they're, that the only way that they could continue this program through that competitive fund would be to not get, would be to have a cut to their other program, which again, one fair and square, one contract, and they're hoping to win that contract again, and I don't think it would be right to say like, you're really effective in both places. We have seen that you've been doing the services but you know because the only way that you can access the funds is through this program that has a cap on it we're actually going to cut you and that's a worst setting ourselves up for. So that's why I would really, really ask the committee to restore these funds for MDMA. This is not something that I take lightly. I absolutely want the best people for the job doing all the jobs, especially as we serve some of our most vulnerable population. This is the way to do that. And we can see that when you dig into the grant report which I've now spent many hours doing. So you know a vote today would put this on the reconciliation list which does allow for more conversations between now and full council which I'm happy to have I know that NVMA has been engaged in having these conversations to answer some of the very questions that I had as it turns out, since some of the similar questions that you all had to, to me, the answers point to, this is an organization that's doing a great job on really everything but they're reporting. And they've been reporting the same way and using these, they're you know dropped on menus since 2010 2014 so You know they they will Update and and adjust Super helpful point I have lots of thoughts on on all those comments. Let's start with councilmember sales Followed by councilmemberkin, and then I'll make my comments and have a couple questions. Council Member Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Within the reporting, do we require outcomes? Do we require post-preimposed surveys for any of the communities that are being served with taxpayer dollars? It's one thing to connect people to resources, what are the outcomes? And I don't hear a lot about outcomes. It's one thing to have students come into a space, but what have been the outcomes? Are there grades raising? Is it moving towards closing the achievement gap in our schools? If we don't have that sort of information or we're not capturing that or requiring that from our grantees then that's a problem. We even met during e-con yesterday and had the same discussions with our small business NDA account. There's eight contractors that are getting money. They're not spending down the resources that they have, but we are an outcomes-based entity as a government spending taxpayer dollars to carry out the services and work that we do. If we're not seeing a great return on our investment, it's hard to justify continuation of funding these programs. So if you could tell me a little bit more about what's required of our contractors and what information they're actually providing. Sure. So vast majority of our contracts do include outcome measures to make sure that it's not just about serving a certain number of people. It's making sure that the people they're serving benefit from the services they're getting. So we do have outcome measures in many of our contracts. Historically, the contracts that resulted from community grants, which is a long-standing program that changed two or three years ago, when we created the Office of the Grants Management to move a lot of those community grants into that office as opposed to just the kind executive of the county council choosing vendors throughout the years to perform services, those contracts do not have outcome measures that they have very little requirements historically. As we moved away from that as those community grants became part of the base budget for HHS, we started adjusting the contracts to start including those. This particular one does not have outcome measures because this year was the first year that we adjusted the contract to make to what they were doing initially. So at this point there is no outcomes. It was just a, I'm serving this many, the expectation is that you serve this many people doing this thing. So this particular contract does not have those but most of ours do. It should be 100%. It's taxpayer dollars and we have to be accountable for every penny that goes out the door especially now When times are tight budgets are getting tight demands are increasing We need to reevaluate all of our contracts. I've been saying that since I started here and I see how many contracts Are in the base budget don't get re-evaluated don't rebid, and we're still seeing dismal numbers in reporting and outcomes. I'm truly confused at how we have a health and human services department that doesn't track outcomes. I'm really concerned. You all get the lion share of our budget outside of MCPS and the amount of work that you all do with MCPS to not ensure that all of the contracts that you all oversee and execute don't have outcomes. I'm just not sure how we're allowing money to just go out the door and not holding these entities accountable. So that's something we need to look into in the fall and ensure that we're reevaluating the terms and provisions of all of our contracts so that they are all outcome based. If they are not, they all need to be re-evaluated. We cannot continue to have contracts that are not producing outcomes and telling us how they are improving circumstances for our most vulnerable residents. I mean, we're talking about the achievement gap that has continued for decades. And we're throwing money at the Black and Brown coalition, who has shown us that numbers are not improving. And we have contractors who are getting money that can go to MCPS, or go to the entities that are showing outcomes. This is unacceptable. So I'm hoping that this isn't the end of the conversation, but agree with the county executive's recommendation. Councilmember Lutke, that adds to what I was going to say. I'm going to respond to that and respond to some of, try to respond to as much as what Councilmember Mink mentioned as well, but Councilmember Lutke, and Mr. Raj, I have some questions for you. Thank you. And maybe this will help. Maybe what I'm about to ask is going to help. Let's hope so. Certainly, I concur with the comments that my colleague Council Member Mink referenced regarding the niche population, the language barriers, and the cultural issues at play here. But I want to unpack, cleanly, two things. You've got the $147,000 bucket and you've got the $89,000 bucket. You've talked about, because the subject of what we're debating here is about the $89,000 bucket, which we added back in last year, which you did a new contract for. And you've asserted some challenges with how that has performed. What has or hasn't happened with the other contract? As you noted,, there's renewal period and those you have to apply for those grants every year. And what is there performance under that? How has that been? Does it contrast with or is it comparable to? And whether grant assessments moving forward, if that's where all the money is, is being evaluated based on this other one-off contract for the $89,000. Can you speak to those concerns? So the difference between the $147 and the $89,000 contract is a cost reimbursement contract. So they have to perform certain things and then they put it in invoicing with the backup documentation to get reimbursed for that. So that's how that works. The grant, the 147 is the same for all grants throughout the county, including an an officer grants management that's all upfront payment. So the 147 is thousands given to them and the other partners that we have who receive grants upfront. And so they're tasked with using that money to perform the things they said they would do in the grant application. There is some monitoring that happens, but generally, we wait for the end of the report to be able to make sure that they spent that funding on what they were supposed to do. That, depending on that report, then informs the ability to refund them, continually refund. We do a lot to reapply and get funding again. Yes. And so for how many years has NVMA received funding under that grant program, if you know? I don't know. I can do you know. I believe the grant program's only been in place for two years, two or three years at most. Okay, and so prior to two or three years ago when this grant program started, what was the level of county funding in totality that was going to MVMA to perform services? Yeah, I don't know the breakdown for previous years from that grant. I don't know that there was any more than the 89,000 for tutoring but that's me just not sure of it because the community grant funds that 2.5 or I think is 2.5 million or whatever is in there was created out of sort of the increased drain COVID so sort of the minority health programs all got large increases during COVID that was one of the ones that they got. So I don't know that there was much funding for them for but we could check that out. I'll just say based on my research, they have only had this contract and now they have the grant. So this contract has been longstanding in the only contract that they've had in the county.. So for the many, many years, you know, we heard Councilmember Mink go back to the 2010 agreement that it has been a you deliver the service, you submit invoices we reimburse you, is that correct? Okay so are the challenges that are currently being experienced because it these the things you have raised seem to be related to that $89,000 contract as opposed to the grant Contract so we're gonna focus on the 89k bucket Have those challenges are they newly arisen or longstanding? No, they're longstanding. So we've had our contract monitor working with MBA year after year, making sure that they submit clean invoices on time. I mean, as I mentioned, they've changed the scope a little bit without consulting HHS a couple of times. And so we are this year, we are very clear about what they're doing, what they're supposed to be doing. And but we continue to have some invoicing issues with them. You continue to have invoicing issues, but the clarity that was provided on the scope of work of what you're supposed to be doing and what they are doing? Are they matching? Mostly. They just, the report that comes from every main, just mentioned from March, was a final cleaned up version because the reporting we've been getting previous to that was not what we were expecting to get. So that March report finally did kind of clarify for us what they're doing now. So it is certainly much closer to what it was supposed to be, but previous conversations with them, previous reports from them did not provide that clarity that this March report did. Okay. And based on some of the questions that Council member sales was just asking, which type of bucket does the, like for example, the Black Physicians Health Network fall into? Are they in the $147,000? You do the things because we've given you the money bucket or are they in the contract? You deliver the services and get reimbursed bucket. Just about 98% of our contracts are cost reimbursement. So black physician's health network, for example, is a cost reimbursement contract. Okay, so in those particular cases, because I know she asked about outcomes evaluations, but in those particular cases where you're able to evaluate and have the contracts, if you will, monitored on that ongoing basis as opposed to only once a year, right? Because you have to review the invoices, you're having to see what services are being delivered and then having to approve for payment, right? Okay. I just wanted to get some feedback on that. One thing I will add to, from the contract monitor perspective, it is easier, better for them to build a monitor throughout the year, through monthly reports, through invoicing. Because if there are issues, we can discuss with them that these are your issues Praise. Fix these for the next month. If we see issues that are occurring more frequently or are not being addressed, we can provide a cure letter, which is just the legal term from a contract perspective, to say that you have 30 days, 90 days, to correct these things or we will be terminating your contract. So generally when I don't believe we've ever issued a cure letter for NVMA, I don't remember any of them. So that, but as one thing we do, and why it's important for contract monitors to be observing what's going on throughout the year, so it does offer the partner an opportunity to make corrections where needed before the end of the contract period. Sure, and I think what you just said was really important. So there's been a lot of back and forth on how to adjust their invoicing or what have you and how to make it work, work a bull, and they've submitted corrected things, but you haven't had to do that cure letter for them, correct? Okay. And so then I'm wondering, you know, back to Councilmember Sales' points about the, you know, and you look at the bucket of folks who get money upfront and then tell you at the end of the year what they did with it, versus those who are on a contract where they have specified roles, responsibilities and deliverables that you're able to monitor on an ongoing basis and at some point not relevant to today. But I think we need to have a deeper conversation about those different mechanisms for delivering community work and making sure we are getting the best bang for the best bang for your buck, if you will, and being the best stewards of our tax dollars by making sure we're matching dollars to policy deliverables in the community and being appropriately effectuated. So with that, I'll turn it back to Councilmember Albinos. Thank you. Boy, lots to cover here. So I'm going to start 30,000 feet and then work my way down specifically to the MBA and make a contract and my thoughts on that. So here's the good news. This Council and the previous executives have invested heavily in our public health infrastructure and our social safety net. And we've got a number of nationally recognized nonprofits that exist within our community. And we've created lots of different avenues to help support new and emerging organizations who are providing a unique set of services to communities that we've acknowledged we can't reach on our own as a county government and they do a better job reaching. The challenge however is that we have not kept pace and provided the commensurate level of infrastructure support within the department of health and human services. We've added all these contracts, we've increased all this work, but we have not increased their capacity to be able to monitor it or let alone establish and track outcomes for it. So we do need to have this conversation, no question, but we also have to be prepared to, if we all agree that that is a direction we should be going in and I don't disagree, we have to make sure that it's implemented with fidelity and that it has the appropriate checks and balances, which is by the way, why, in large part, the previous council recommended, and we're now working on the implementation of the shifting of the grant process. Because before, it was catch as catch can, a lot of it was based on relationships and it was not as transparent as it needed to be and you know candidly all of us have heard from nonprofits that have expressed concern over this transition period within the new grants management and Rafael Porcay I think the guys can have heart attacks. So I know that I completely agree from 30,000 feet, I'd love to have this conversation. We've nibbled at the edges, but particularly as we're going to enter another very difficult, difficult budget season for the foreseeable future, it's appropriate for us to have that conversation. I just wanted to set that record that if we're going to have a conversation, we've got to have the conversation and make sure HHS has what it needs to be successful. Putting that aside for now. So on this specific case, I just have a couple of questions, Mr. Hodge, before giving my thoughts on this. The cap is a relevant issue. If we are referring MVMA to a fund that they can't even apply for, then it's disingenuous to be telling them in this body that, well, you can apply for this fund if it's capped. Can you talk a little bit about that? And is there any consideration being given what policy would need to be amended or changed for them to be able to legitimately and authentically apply for this additional 80,000 plus in addition to the contract and not have an impact that contract. So, because all of the grants from this fund renew every year, there's no guarantee that anyone's going to be renewed for. So NVMA is not guaranteed a renewal of $147,000. It's really based on the merits of what they've done based on what was in the final report, as well as the merits of their new application. So, in it, that gets all applications from all grant proposals are looked at by subject matter experts and decisions made to fund them or not to fund them. So, to say they don't have the opportunity to apply for the to say $9,000 because there's a cap. It's not exactly true because they can apply for that and other things too, but they're not going to be funded for more than $150,000 total. And so, again, everyone who applies for that is based on the merits of their application. And the outcomes from the report at a minimum from the previous years grant. So, agreed that assuming they got $147,000 again, they wouldn't be eligible currently to get the $89,000 on top of that. So, that does place a limit on them. However, they may decide to make changes in the current program that they're running. They may choose to combine that into a new grant proposal. They have access to $150,000. I did speak to the program. It is a program decision to have that cap of $150,000. They do believe that that amount is fair because it's not a giant part of money. It's $2.5 million, I think, total. Plus $89,000. That in order to fund as many partners as possible to be able to get that money out the door that $150,000 cap expands the availability to other partners across the community. And because it is part of the Asian American Health Initiative, certainly the purpose in the grant proposals is to serve that particular community. And so it's not like it's being given to other partners to do something completely different. Councillor Romney has a follow up to that and then I'll finish my thoughts, but thank you for that. Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, they can apply for the funds. They could not get more than 3,000 of them if they also earn the grant which they have earned for previous years. The two grants work together. So the one that they currently have, that they have been winning $147,000 on, is a senior wellness grant. I've been to numerous events of those. I recommend anybody go. You can just drop in, because they're all the time. They're required to be weekly. They're sometimes more. And they have a lot of people who go. And whenever I speak to them, I have to have, they translate for me, because it is a roomful of seniors who speak Vietnamese. So when we look at the results of their other contract, the $89,000 one, where they are helping to connect 100 plus seniors to government benefits, we can see how they are getting all of these seniors in the door because they're already there doing their getting their senior wellness, participating in the senior wellness programs, which in fact I think I know that I've seen other council members at some of those. So you know we all know that they have, they are indeed holding them, they are a lot of fun, and every time you go the seniors there will tell you through a translator how important they are, they are indeed holding them, they are a lot of fun and every time you go the seniors there will tell you through translator how important these gatherings are to them. They've talked about, in fact I presented at one of them a proclamation with Councilor Fanny Gonzalez and we heard, we heard we went from table to table, you know, talking with them through translators for many people, hearing about how important these visits were, these activities were for community building, you know, amongst a population that where we know that the mental health issues among seniors are very high. And this is how you combat that. It was also really important to them for cultural preservation. And it was, you know, they really, really worked to impress how important it was. And so again, for them to combine the two programs, case management to the degree that was happening on this $89,000 contract is not part of that. And that's a significant workload as we all, because we provide constituent services and of course you all know very well and so that's why we've got they've got the separate contract here but again having even somebody else do that you know they're not going to have the same relationships they're not going to have that pool of clients that they have through their other contract. I appreciate all that. So just to kind of close out my thoughts. It's not lost on me at all, and it's very significant that the first Asian-American member of this body is understandably and appropriately and passionately advocating for an Asian organization. As the second Latino, it was the first at-large member in the Latino community to serve in this position. And I know Council Member Stales has similar experiences as well. We feel the weight of our roles that go beyond what's in the job description and being advocates for our community. So I just want to, from that level, I just want to express my deepest respect for what you're doing, Council Member Mink. And that's why it's important for this body to reflect the diversity of the communities we serve, because you're sharing information that we otherwise may not have had. Had you not taken the time and the interest to dig in and get in the weeds. Having said that, I do want to say a couple of things. One is it's sadly a recurring refrain where organizations with the best of intentions are offering programs and services that are valuable, but don't have the administrative support or capacity to be able to administer contracts. That's a longstanding issue in a lot of different categories. It's not something that I'll ever, I think, will ever completely wrap arms around. And it speaks to the broader conversation of providing better, not just contract monitoring and outcome measurements, but support administratively for organizations such as MVMA moving forward. But that's like a broader, more deep conversation that we're going to have to have and we will have. There is precedence, I'm thinking of the George B. Thomas Learning Academy, of the council that I've seen, and I'm sure there are many examples where we have waited on contract issues because of, you know, we're trying to advocate for a constituency council may have information that the executive branch may not have and so it's not, there is precedent for this body to kind of put itself in what would otherwise not be our lane, which is that contracting component, which of course is the executive branch's provision. I am concerned and I am moved by the fact that this 89,000 is unique for three reasons, I think. One is that I understand the deferral to this other pot of money, but they can't apply for it. And yes, they can adjust and accommodate and move it, but they're going to have to let go or find other funding sources to be able to carry out some of the scope that they're doing within this 89,000 because it's not completely congruent with what they're doing within the 147,000. I also happen to uniquely know more than the average person, the nonprofit organizations that serve our Vietnamese community in particular, because several of them work through the Department of Recreation and provide services through our senior, I say hour, because I still feel, you know, through their senior programming. And there are a lot of complexities within our Vietnamese community that are still repercussions from the war and folks that have come here with differing views, differing dialects. And I happen to know that MVMA serves a certain population within our Vietnamese community that other Vietnamese community serving organizations don't serve. I just, it's an internal cultural issue, but it is an important one, and it's not always just language that connects these communities. There are a lot of other layers to these services as well. And the last thing I'll say for now is I also think that although we were able to provide support last year, I do think it's not unreasonable to provide organizations such as MVMA, a longer runway to be able to make this transition. So I'm torn here because I also don't want to send the message to our colleagues in HHS who are doing their job. And I think they need more capacity to be able to do it even better than they're doing. But I'm also concerned about sort of the programming that's on the ground. So I lean towards putting it on the reconciliation list, acknowledging just being real, just being real, that there's a lot of stuff going on there, even with or without the income tax investment. And I'm not sure how this will fare as compared to other organizations, and I want to be fair to MVMA, but I also want to be respectful to them too and send the message if we hear you and we're trying to find some reasonable compromise. So those are my thoughts for now. Councilmember Lutke, Councilmember Sales, is there anything that you all wanted to add or any other questions or thoughts that you guys have? No, I agree. Okay, so we'll put it on the reconciliation list. We'll have this broader conversation of a later date on contracting issues. And we have thousands of contracts and several, just a handful of people monitoring them. And we have to get these folks help. And that's something that we have to be committed to as a body. But I appreciate you coming forward, Mr. Hodg, because you provided a lot of additional information that is valuable. Again, I just want to stress one last time. I don't want the message to be we don't appreciate or respect the role of HHS. We do. It's just in this unique circumstance, given the dynamics were differing slightly but we'll see where this lands at the end of the budget process. Did you have any questions or thoughts Ms. Clemence Johnson? Is that clear? No, it is clear. When we take it to full council I will check with our council attorney about how we work. But yes, we're still adding the money to the reconciliation list, easily. Okay, great. I think that is it. Was there anything else? No, that's it. All right, it's almost lunch time. So we're going to go ahead and wrap up for today. Thank you very much, Mr. Hyde. Thank you, team. Great job, as always. And with that, we are adjourned. and we have a joint education and culture in HHS budget session tomorrow. Thank you.