Changes are coming to Denver’s mental health and drug addiction grant program, which distributes more than $40 million a year. But the city needs time to assess exactly what those changes will be.
A new contract now scheduled to be up for discussion before Denver City Council on Monday, Dec. 9, will alter the terms with the Caring for Denver Foundation, the nonprofit that manages the city tax money from a 2018 ballot initiative. The contract will now be for only one year, not five years, as was previously proposed.
At the same time, the current version of the contract city council will discuss would continue to shield Caring for Denver from some scrutiny by continuing to restrict the type of records the organization would be required to release to the public.
The changes come after a CPR News investigation found millions has gone to organizations that have little or no experience in mental health and drug treatment services. Some of the granted organizations are run by convicted felons with recent criminal history. And some nonprofits have misrepresented their partnerships with city and state agencies.
Denver city councilwoman Jamie Torres said the council had limited options at their disposal to respond to CPR News’ reporting. Caring for Denver distributes money to many vital programs that count on the funding and the organization’s contract was up in a few weeks.
“And we can't interrupt all of the ways that organizations are getting funding,” Torres said.
The city can’t distribute the money itself, it must contract with a nonprofit, according to language written into the original voter-approved ordinance written by the leaders of Caring for Denver.
“It’s not perfect,” admitted Torres.
But she said making the contract term one year rather than five will give time for a larger review of nonprofits that distribute Denver tax money.
“We still have to dig into what are the issues that this is uncovering. What are some of the other funds, what protocols are they going by, and they could be very different from each other?” Torres said. “We have three organizations that are outside of the city that get a contract funded by sales taxes.”
CPR News found that Caring for Denver granted more than $170 million in tax dollars to more than 200 groups, mostly to nonprofit organizations, yet mental health and drug addiction problems worsened in the city. Anti-violence funding from Caring for Denver has also had limited impact, as violent crime in Denver remains historically high.
One anti-violence advocate whose organization was funded by Caring for Denver was arrested for murder this summer.
Shorter terms, but less transparency?
New language in the contract, however, arguably adopts a Caring for Denver argument restricting the amount of their records that must be made public.
Previously, Caring for Denver was — on paper anyway — required to make most records public, according to their contract with the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.
Caring for Denver’s current contract, which expires in a few weeks, states that the organization “shall permit public inspection of records involving the grants provided under this Agreement…”
But Caring for Denver cited a different section of the contract in denying records requests from CPR News. That portion states: “information shared at Board meetings and final grant awards shall be treated as public records…”
Nothing in any document precludes Caring for Denver from releasing public records.
Now, the new contract explicitly states that “grant contracts and information shared at the board meeting involving the approved grants” will be open for public inspection.
If the contract remains as written, the organization could potentially continue shielding any Caring for Denver reviews or audits of grantee performance, making it impossible for the public to evaluate Caring for Denver’s stewardship of the grant program.
Also excluded from public view would be applications filed by prospective grantees, objections from the staff to grant awards, emails and memos related to the expenditure of tax money and even the lists of applicants who were denied grants.
How are Denver councilmembers and health officials responding so far to the new contract?
Torres said that council did not get a chance to review the contract before it was posted as part of the Monday agenda. She said she is primarily focused on changing the length of the contract.
Councilman Paul Kashmann said in a text that he would be out of town and would miss Monday’s vote, “but, in general, when public dollars are involved, I always lean toward greater transparency, rather than less.”
DDPHE, which oversees the Caring for Denver contract, said the proposed changes to the contract are designed to align the contract with the ordinance that created the Caring for Denver fund.
“Previously … the ordinance and the contract contained conflicting language, and the contract's wording was vague, making it unclear what could be enforced,” DDPHE spokesperson Emily Williams said. “Additionally, the new contract clearly defines that additional and specific documents are subject to open records, including grant agreements, which previously would not have been subject to CORA.
“Grant agreements are the contract between Caring for Denver and the grantee to show the dates, objectives identified by the grantee and program officer, approved budget, and any special provisions. This document is developed after the grant proposal and has more information about the agreed-upon work than an initial grant application.”
And, she added, the next year could bring additional changes in transparency requirements for Caring for Denver and other taxpayer-funded organizations with city contracts.
“Over the course of the next year, our department will be looking at all our contracts involving sales tax, including Caring for Denver, and working with the Mayor's Office and City Council on this process to ensure consistency across contracts,” Williams wrote in an email response. “DDPHE is committed to transparency and through the process will determine what additional mechanisms are needed to ensure additional accountability and transparency.”
CPR News journalists ran into public information issues while reporting on Caring for Denver
CPR News, during its investigation, informed DDPHE that Caring for Denver was withholding records, but a spokesperson for the agency told CPR News at the time “to work with [Caring for Denver] and their legal team to understand what records are releasable.”
Caring for Denver did partially fulfill CPR News’ request for documents after a board member intervened, but declined to produce data and audits.
The newly proposed contract language troubles public records advocates.
“The grant contracts and information about how Caring for Denver awards millions of taxpayer dollars should be made available for public inspection regardless of whether any of it is shared at a board meeting,” said Jeff Roberts, a former longtime Denver Post reporter with the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition. “That new language provides an easy way for them to avoid public scrutiny simply by not discussing the information in a public setting. The city should make sure these records are open.”
Monday’s meeting begins at 3:30 p.m. in room 450 at 1437 Bannock St.
