Whose Money Is It Anyway? a County-Level Case Study Exploring Community Resource Flow

Background and Purpose: Extant research demonstrates that how human service organizations are funded and where they are located affects service accessibility. Simultaneously, greater competition for public and private dollars, coupled with increasing pressure on both “collective” and “local” efforts, have compelled neighboring communities and organizations to balance their resources between larger collaborative efforts and those that primarily serve residents. This county-level case study examines the dynamics of within-county resource flow, stemming from concerns that common need measures (e.g. median income, poverty rate) mask need in some communities and disproportionately disadvantages agencies and, by extension, both taxpayers and service recipients, in competitive funding processes. I examine the validity of these claims quantitatively and qualitatively investigate the dynamics of local funding with two prevailing research questions:

• How are within-county resources distributed between neighboring regions?
• How do local organizations perceive and navigate funding processes for these dollars?

Methods: Using data from ten years of IRS 990 filings (n=1038), grant/contract awards of local funders (e.g. foundations, United Ways, and local government funders), and a provider survey, I examined within-county resource flow and compare traditional markers of organizational health (e.g. operating margins) between regions. Subsequently, I conducted fifteen qualitative interviews with local funders and providers to better understand resourcing and service challenges, including their perception of fairness and equity in funding processes.

Results: Since 2005, government investment in County A’s human services sector has steeply inclined, largely through 3 large countywide levies. Although investments by within-county geographical region vary over time, analysis and interview data suggest this variability is primarily driven by robustness of local nonprofit sectors (e.g. fewer organizations and applicants in some regions of the county). Providers within high-income regions claim (and data support) declines in government support, necessitating increased private fundraising for these organizations. However, despite perceptions of funding cuts from private funders, analysis shows that funding to within-county regions remains proportionally consistent. Furthermore, organizations in high-income regions currently exhibit higher operating margins than their regional counterparts, suggesting they are better equipped to weather changes in funding composition.

Conclusions and Implications: The perception of a “stacked deck” against high-income regions is making the county’s service network vulnerable, as providers in these areas are threatening to campaign against levy reauthorizations and pull out of regional coalitions. Thus, findings illustrate the need to investigate how tension around funding can shape practices, partnerships, and policies, as social workers at all levels are impacted by (and can impact) these dynamics. These tensions also highlight the need to better understand how issues of social equity are affecting all county residents, including how resource allocation decisions are both made and communicated to providers and the broader public.