Earlier today I received an inquiry from one local group asking what the likely local match requirements would be for Promise Neighborhood planning grants, which we hope to see details on later this month from the administration.
My answer was, of course, that I can not be sure because the administration is (properly) very careful not to share grant-related information with anyone in advance, including us. When the information is finally released, they will want everyone to know at the same time to keep a level playing field. As a result, the insights that Hayling and I share on this blog are primarily educated guesses.
That said, I did have an educated guess on the planning grant question, which I will share here. The answer also lends itself to political mobilization, which I will also share some thoughts about below.
First, on the planning grant question, my answer was that while we can not be sure until we see the RFP, the language from the administration’s Social Innovation Fund may be instructive:
Applicants must provide matching funds in an amount equal to and not less than $1 for every $1 of funds provided under the grant. Matching funds may come from State, local, or private sources, which may include State or local agencies, businesses, private philanthropic organizations, or individuals. Federal funds may not be counted towards the match requirement.
That policy on the Social Innovation Fund could be applied to both the planning grants and to the expected $200 million in implementation grants when they are made next year. (Note that the Social Innovation Fund actually requires leveraging federal money at a 3-1 rate, since SIF funds go to grant making institutions and they in turn make subgrants that also have a matching requirement).
Promise Neighborhoods grants aren’t likely to require a 3-1 match like SIF grants but, still, there are some problems with these match requirements from UNCA’s point of view. First, it needs to be remembered that we are focusing on low-income communities. Not every community has access to lots of Wall Street money like the Harlem Children’s Zone, and even they have faced private funding issues in recent years due to the Wall Street retreat. Low-income communities by definition do not have easy access to lots of private funding.
Second, as we have previously reported, states and local governments are in crisis mode right now. They do not have a lot of spare cash lying around. That’s why we had the federal government pass a stimulus package last year. It is considering a new jobs bill as we speak.
Third, putting other federal funds off limits as a match is not only a bad idea for the reasons just stated, but also because one of the major points of Promise Neighborhoods is to break down silos between programs. Matching federal dollars with other federal dollars is a strong indication that these silos are being busted. Morover, the administration has been very clear that we are on the cusp of some serious budgetary belt tightening. In that environment, there isn’t likely to be a lot of new money for Promise Neighborhoods in the years ahead, particularly as it expands beyond a pilot program. This is an initiative that will move forward because it is cobbling together different existing funding streams.
That brings us to a final point. While Promise Neighborhoods is an administration initiative, it is also a political one. Congress will have a say. If the administration comes down on the wrong side of this issue, it will be important for the many dozens of members of Congress who have staff subscribed to this list and the many hundreds of practitioners around the country who are also on it to mobilize to make the necessary changes.
Promise Neighborhoods is bigger than the administration. It is part of a bottom up movement. We are all an important part of that. UNCA will play its role in listening to and constructively mobilizing this community as this initiative moves forward.