Strategy 6: Braid, Blend, or Sequence Funding

• Braiding can be determined before a project is launched or incorporated midstream as additional funding sources are identified. Braiding of funding is often highlighted in proposals as a mechanism to extend the impact of the dollars.
• Braiding takes advantage of existing reporting, delivery, and fund management structures but can also be used as a mechanism to advance collaboration amongst partners.
• Over time, programs that regularly braid may align data collection efforts such as enrollment to reduce the burden to participants. They may also share or integrate data to provide more seamless support.
• Often braiding occurs when two services are being provided simultaneously. “For instance, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) has clarified that Ticket to Work Outcome and Milestone payments funded through the Social Security Administration may occur simultaneously with payment for Supported Employment services funded through the Medicaid Waiver program to create a more robust support system for individuals seeking sustained CIE.”
• The use of braided funds is often accompanied by co-enrollment requirements to ensure that the individual receiving services meets the compliance requirements of each funding stream. For example, an individual may be co-enrolled in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and WIOA in order to combine supportive services funds with educational support. Alternatively, WIOA and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding may be braided where CDBG provides stipends for youth who meet specific family income thresholds and WIOA provides the career navigation support, for example.

• While blending may provide a more seamless experience to both the implementor (e.g. training provider, community-based organization) and the recipient of the services (e.g. out-of-school youth, new american, returning citizen) the administrator of the blended funds often still needs to manage diverse funder inquiries and reporting requests unless data systems have also been integrated.
• Compliance requirements should be carefully reviewed before blending any federal funding streams with other sources. In all cases, it is best to check with the funder about the requirements for blending the funds before doing so.
• There are a variety of workforce organizations that have created pooled funds, such as the Shift Work Forward and Chicagoland Workforce Funder Alliance, which may include a mix of employers, philanthropies, and other core stakeholders. There are also philanthropy led funds such as the Families and Workers Fund (FWF), ReWork the Bay, and New York City Workforce Funders, that pool resources to tackle an issue, population need, or geography.
• The term “pooling” may also be used when federal and state dollars are combined to advance work such as that done through State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is a partnership that provides health insurance coverage to low-income children. In that example, federal funds are combined with state contributions to expand health insurance access.

Each of these three funding models – blending, braiding, and sequencing – can be used to maximize the impact of a program. The level of effort can vary greatly depending on the existing depth of relationships and flexibility of infrastructure.

Download: Common Approaches for Implementation – Table 1

Download: Benefits and Challenges of Braiding, Blending and Sequencing Funding

Embedding Equity in the Work

• Personas and User Journeys: When designing new programs with sequenced or braided funding consider using personas and user journeys not only to center the needs of the participant in the design but virtually walk through the process to surface potential inconsistencies or areas of confusion due to differences in eligibility across funding streams, reporting requirements, and hand-offs. Consider where there may be flexibility to better integrate processes in ways that still collect necessary data for compliance with funding requirements but feel more seamless to the individual.
• Consider Existing and Future Data: Use the conversations around blending, braiding or sequencing as an opportunity to examine where existing (or future) data sets might provide additional insights into the population being served. For example, will the number of people served increase thus providing a larger sample size and better facilitating data disaggregation? Will new funding allow for the collection of qualitative data to complement existing quantitative data?

Note: For more information on diversifying funding streams you can also check out the Opportunity for Change from the Job Quality Playbook called Diversifying Revenue Streams.

While braiding, blending, and sequencing can be powerful models to meet an individual’s needs, there are important compliance requirements that users of these techniques should keep in mind. For example, below are summaries for key workforce-related areas:

Download: Compliance Considerations – Table 1

Each of these funding models – blending, braiding and sequencing – should be used in a way that is fit for purpose. The timeline and expected duration of a program, degree of partnership, and funder requirements will all influence which model is most appropriate for a given scenario. See some examples below of when a particular model might be most applicable. In all cases, compliance requirements should be closely reviewed before any one of these approaches is implemented.

Download: Compliance Considerations – Blending, Braiding, Sequencing

How to Get Started

1. For new programs, document the desired impact of the program and then assess:
   • Which funding source or sources would be best positioned to support the work?
   • How might those sources be used in tandem?
   • Is this a short-term operational need or a long-term strategic opportunity?
2. For programs that are already up and running, perform a gap assessment. Be specific about the amount and characteristics of the funding needed.
3. Examine your current funding sources as well as those of your partners. Consider:
   • Could the total costs of the program be divided up amongst various sources through cost allocation?
   • Could the costs for certain aspects (such as training, transportation, food) be paid from one source vs another based on their areas of focus?
   • Could the funding be sequenced in a way that would expedite the delivery of service, reduce risk or increase participation?
4. Consider which funding sources might be missing.
   • Is your current “capital stack” primarily made up of the public sector? Exclusively philanthropic? How might you engage with new funders to raise awareness of this work? Beware the myth of diversification – diverse sources of funds can be powerful but sometimes they are just more work.  Depends on the amount, timing, requirements, etc.
5. Conduct exploratory conversations with potential stakeholders/funders to assess feasibility of partnership for the project.
6. Carefully evaluate the compliance requirements associated with each funding source.
   • Is it allowable to use the funding to cover the gap?
   • What is the level of effort and is it worth it based on the expected benefit?
   • Do you have the human resources necessary to tackle it?
7. Review your existing processes to determine what other changes might be necessary to provide a seamless customer experience.
   • Will changes be needed to forms to meet all eligibility or compliance requirements?
   • Could data or staff be shared across partners to avoid having a participant re-tell their story?
   • Could teams be co-located or cross trained?
   • Can systems be connected or integrated to speed up access to information?
   • What governance processes or structures will be needed to successfully manage the partnership?
8. Rank target funding sources based on factors such as complexity, stakeholder interest and capacity, etc.
9. Prioritize sources of funding, acknowledging that an agency may choose a more modest budget with fewer sources of funding as compared to a larger budget with more – and more complicated – sources of funding.
10. Establish systems and processes to support successful implementation of the project such as:
    • Program strategy (e.g. leadership councils, shared strategy documents, program meetings)
    • Governance (e.g. committee, task force)
    • Operations (e.g. cross-training, referral processes, co-location options, risk management, staff engagement and training)
    • Data and Reporting (e.g. enrollment forms, monthly or quarterly performance metrics, fiscal reporting)
    • Evaluation and Continuous Process Improvement (e.g. interviews, focus groups, 3rd party evaluator engagement)
11. Fund and operate the program, tracking funds and activities appropriately.
12. Monitor and adjust as needed throughout the life of the program.