Nonprofit Programs Must Evolve
As we look to 2027, the nonprofit landscape continues to be shaped by national priorities and revised federal guidance. Each nonprofit must always be scanning the horizon to make sure we know what is coming in the near future. I was once told that grants and budget follow a 3-year cycle. We are currently executing the current year budget, working to approve next year’s budget, and formulating the following years’ budget. We are also conducting our regular duties in the form of compliance with federal, state, and accounting requirements.
When we look at our work over a three-year timeline, it really gives us opportunity to plan, change course, and make a contingency plan. It is the worst case scenario when we must layoff staff, or be forced to eliminate a program due to lack of funding. So lets look at how we can be nimble and modify our programs to still receive funding, still be compliant and always continue carrying out our agency mission.
When we see new requirements as directed by the government, I automatically think what other types of programs and service delivery methods can used and still meet the same end result. I have noticed that the government has multiple ways of getting to the same end goal, they just call it by different names, or use a different type of funding to accomplish it. In subsidized housing, its an alphabet soup but it serves as a great example. Different types of funding can be HUD CoC/CDBG/HOME/VASH/ESG/HOPWA/Trust Funds/and Vouchers. Then we look at the different types of housing assistance that go with each; prevention, emergency, short/medium, permanent, project and tenant-based.
Get Boulderblake’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
As a community I’m always thinking how the nonprofit providers should always be talking and thinking of ways to preserve our programs. I notice that our front line staff do a great job cross-training and sharing best practices but the strategic business side of programs still seems to be siloed. I do want to clarify that our programs must always comply with federal requirements, and never circumvent equitable access to services. What I am saying is we need to be creative in proposing modified types of services that are allowable. A great example is the use of shared-housing for supporting those who have experienced homelessness.
In a past life our office was administering HUD-HOME funds and I was asked to research if our funds could fund shared housing. After researching shared-housing and what funds can pay for what, I came across the following guidance. “It is not detailed in HOME 24 CFR Part 92. Shared housing is fully eligible due to regulatory silence and the programs flexible structure; clients still must be low-income.”
Another example I remember is when a supervisor told me to use 2 different types of HUD funds for 2 different types of work, for the same project. We would use CDBG for the salaries of program delivery staff and complemented that with HOME for the rental assistance subsidy. This does make accounting and expense review a little cumbersome, but not impossible.
I only use these examples as why we should always keep looking and continue to be creative. Maybe we keep blending funds, add in state or local funds, initiate fundraising to augment projects, or secure in-kind goods or services. When we are always talking and looking at the new rules from multiple perspectives, our programs can continue to evolve and be successful.
