SLECC Key Challenges and State and Local Solutions Database
Challenge/Local/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.
Challenge/Local/State
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.
Challenge/Local/State
SGC should coordinate funding across agencies to solve the capital stacking problem for multi-benefit projects. Organizations pursuing the integrated approaches communities need should not be forced to independently assemble complex multi-funder packages that structurally favor well-resourced applicants over under-resourced ones.
Challenge/Local/State
State should devolve decision-making away from state-level political processes and toward local data and planning so that what gets funded reflects actual community conditions and priorities.
Challenge/Local/State
Legislature should provide more flexibility within implementation programs, allowing funding to support coordination, community engagement, and multi-benefit projects rather than restricting grants to single-purpose capital outputs.
Challenge/Local/State
Legislature should fund SGC for front-end state-local collaboration on program design so that community-identified needs are built into program requirements before they are finalized, rather than communities discovering after the fact that their priorities do not fit eligible categories.
Challenge/Local/State
Develop community-owned plans and project pipelines before pursuing state funding. When funding becomes available the project is grounded in community-identified priorities rather than shaped by what the funding category happens to require.
Challenge/Local/State
CalEnviroScreen (the primary state tool for directing disadvantaged community funding) is perceived as inaccurate for many Central Coast communities and does not recognize non-federally recognized tribes or locally specific vulnerability data.
Challenge/Local/State
Pilot locally appropriate approaches even when funding is rigid. Where possible, local entities adapt program delivery within allowable rules to better fit community context.
Challenge/Local/State
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.
Challenge/Local/State
Rigid rules separating infrastructure from programming prevent integrated solutions.
Challenge/Local/State
Incentive alignment: Better align funding priorities across federal, state, regional, and local stakeholders to reduce conflicts.
Challenge/Local/State
Ensure funding supports both infrastructure and programming (e.g., upgrades + community education).
Help us to expand this 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.
