The Workforce Evidence-Based Spending Guide

Braid, Blend, or Sequence Funding: Common Approaches

Common Approaches for Implementation

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.

Approach
Connected to
Description

Matching Funds

Braiding

Federal grants often require fund matching from non-federal funds in order to be awarded the grant or to unlock certain portions of the funding. Match funding generally comes from philanthropic or private companies, but may also be drawn from local or state funds, contingent on compliance requirements. Match funding requirements can be used as a strategic mechanism to braid or sequence funding from two or more sources to accomplish a shared goal. Sequencing or braiding can be organized by phases, by services, or even by population. Agencies commonly solicit philanthropic funds to unlock federal funding. Matching funds are usually documented through a letter of intent, grant submission and grant agreement.

Co-location/Cost Sharing

Braiding

In co-location, multiple organizations or programs use the same physical location. Programs may have dedicated space within a building or may rotate or share the use on an established schedule. Cost-sharing is commonly used to cover the costs of physical spaces such as the job center facility and its accompanying utilities. Co-location and cost sharing can reduce silos between agencies, improve service to an individual by housing all of the programs in a central space, and maximize resource use by reducing the need for each program to fund space, tools, or technology separately. This approach is also referred to as resource sharing. Co-location/cost sharing/resource sharing is usually documented through either an MOU or a contract agreement.

Referral Processes

Braiding or sequencing

Referral processes are established mechanisms for connecting an individual with additional services. Agencies may provide them manually, such as through introductions to other individuals in the job center or the provision of contact information at the other agency, or through a referral system that automatically shares case information with the other referral agency. Each organization pays for the portion of the support they provide and an individual may ultimately co-enroll in multiple programs. Referral processes are usually documented through standard operating procedures or organizational policies.

Co-Enrollment

Braiding or sequencing

In this approach, an individual is enrolled in two or more programs to tap into a broader set of benefits. Depending on the program and the local area, this may require the individual to complete multiple forms, compliance checks, and eligibility processes. Beginning and ending dates of service provision may also vary and the enrolled individual may have one point of contact per program, unless the local area has created integrated processes. Co-enrollment processes are usually documented through standard operating procedures or organizational policies.

Shared Staffing

Braiding

An individual staff member performs services under multiple programs either in a full time capacity, with the funding for their role drawn from the corresponding funding streams, or is cross-trained to support multiple services so that the staff member can provide coverage when others are out of the office. The latter is particularly common amongst organizations with a smaller staff. Shared staffing is usually documented through a memorandum of understanding, standard operating procedures or organizational policies.

Interagency Agreements / Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Sequencing or Braiding

An established collaboration between two or more agencies around a specific program or initiative that outlines the purposes of the agreement, the parties to the agreement and the respective responsibilities for each agency. Often addresses resource allocation, service delivery, data sharing, compliance and evaluation. Usually accompanied by a shared governance body.

Integrated State or Local Planning

Sequencing, Braiding or Blending

A interagency planning and policy development approach to workforce development. May be done as part of the WIOA state and local planning process or may build on the WIOA plan as the foundation. Usually accompanied by strategic planning groups, steering committees, or workgroups to implement these plans.

Special Purpose Vehicle

Blending

A new legal entity, such as a 501c3 is established to carry out a specific set of objectives through the use of diverse funding streams. Funding is pooled to maximize impact. Documented through the formation documentation required to establish the entity such as as a charter.


Benefits

  • May incentivize conversations about how to better streamline and maximize efforts

  • Can address gaps in funding or increase resources through matching

  • May provide ability to deliver additional / deeper services or extend the time period of services

  • Can increase participant outcomes by meeting a need that was not otherwise covered

  • May encourage additional funders to consider supporting the effort

  • Can reduce paperwork for customer when used in tandem with integrated data collection

  • Can encourage more cross agency planning and evaluation

Challenges

  • Timelines and performance metrics are often unaligned creating additional complexities

  • Reporting is often separate creating duplicate work

  • Eligibilities may not be the same making additional services unavailable for some customers

  • Budgetary or compliance silos, along with bureaucracy, can require extensive planning and navigation of accounting practices to enable an agency to apply a more flexible use to the funds

  • Maintaining a proper balance between budget flexibility and program accountability is requires careful attention

Note: Another important consideration as agencies blend, braid, or sequence funding, is the impact that the provision of one type of support may have on the individual’s access to another. For example, depending on how stipends are structured, they could be treated as income and thus put a worker's access to childcare vouchers in jeopardy. Or, using on-the-job (OJT) funds to increase a worker’s wage during training might increase their job quality but also trigger loss of benefits due to income thresholds. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s Career Ladder Identifier and Financial Forecaster (CLIFF) is a helpful tool to better understand the complexities inherent in public assistance programs. The Office of Human Services Policy also issued a helpful guide for navigating benefits cliffs and their impacts.

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.