State and federal funding priorities often misalign with local needs, favoring rigid rules, reactive approaches, and shifting policies that undermine innovation, certainty, and community-driven solutions.
View the details on what communities have shared with SLECC from across the state.
State and federal funding priorities consistently misalign with local needs, favoring predetermined categories, rigid metrics, and large-scale urban applicants over the place-based, multi-benefit, community-driven approaches that work in rural and small-jurisdiction contexts.
Shifting political and budget priorities create policy volatility that disrupts implementation and undermines confidence. Changes in leadership or policy direction can abruptly alter program availability, leaving local efforts stranded mid-process and creating uncertainty for local implementers and private partners.
SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by local leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.
Document and communicate local priorities clearly and consistently. Local governments proactively articulate shared priorities and constraints so state and federal funders better understand place-based needs.
SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by state leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.
Help us to expand our database. Either share new ideas, best practices or general feedback via this form, or click on a particular item to share additional feedback, information, examples of progress on that particular item.
Please share any additional resources you would like to include by emailing eecoordinator@civicwell.org.
