CLEVELAND — When government provides financial incentives to developers, it is generally described as economic development. When corporations receive tax credits, the assistance is often justified as an investment in jobs and economic growth. But when Cleveland distributes a $25 grocery gift card to a struggling resident, the conversation can turn to political corruption and buying votes.

The distinction deserves examination, particularly in a city where poverty remains a persistent challenge and community organizations are being asked to accomplish more with increasingly limited resources.

During an October 22 Cleveland City Council Operations Committee hearing chaired by Councilman Kris Harsh, members and invited academics discussed the ethical questions surrounding the city’s longstanding grocery gift card program. The discussion addressed legitimate concerns about accountability, documentation and whether elected officials should participate in distributions.

It also raised a question that received considerably less attention: Why does government assistance appear to be viewed differently depending on who receives it?

Cleveland’s holiday grocery gift card program is not new. City Council records document its use in multiple wards by at least 2019, when council authorized nonprofit organizations to distribute food assistance using ward casino revenue funds.

The program developed into a familiar holiday tradition in neighborhoods where residents have struggled with food insecurity, rising living expenses and limited household income.

For some families, receiving a gift card is part of a larger community gathering that may include holiday activities, refreshments and opportunities to interact with neighbors and local organizations. It is not simply a financial transaction.

And while $25 has never represented a substantial amount of money, its purchasing power has declined significantly.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, grocery prices nationally increased approximately 33 percent between September 2019 and September 2026. Something that cost $25 seven years ago would now cost approximately $33.

Consider the price of ordinary groceries. A large bag of potato chips can cost $5, while a bottle of pop can approach $3. Those two purchases alone can consume nearly one-third of the card’s value.

Depending on the store and the size of the bird, $25 may not even cover a Thanksgiving turkey, much less the ingredients necessary to prepare an entire holiday meal.

Yet the assistance remains meaningful enough that residents sometimes wait hours to receive it.

Having attended multiple gift card distributions, this writer has observed residents spending nearly two hours waiting for a $25 card. That willingness to wait does not establish every person’s financial circumstances, but it illustrates how valuable even modest assistance can be.

It also raises questions about the suggestion that accepting such assistance somehow compromises a resident’s political independence.

The implication that a $25 grocery card could purchase the loyalty of Black voters is especially troubling.

Cleveland’s Black electorate has a long history of political participation, organizing and holding public officials accountable. Accepting a modest government benefit does not mean a resident is incapable of making an independent political decision.

Someone can appreciate receiving assistance from a council member and still vote against that council member in the next election.

To assume otherwise risks reducing an entire community to a collection of voters whose political judgment can be purchased for the price of a few groceries.

The distinction between constituent service and political bribery was addressed directly during the October 22 hearing. One invited academic noted that elected officials routinely receive political credit for legitimate public investments, including playgrounds, neighborhood improvements and grocery development projects.

Residents who appreciate those improvements may subsequently support the officials responsible for securing them. That does not automatically transform the expenditures into corruption.

Ohio law prohibits offering things of value to improperly influence voting behavior. But providing assistance through an authorized public program, with established eligibility requirements and appropriate safeguards, is not inherently the same as purchasing votes.

That distinction matters.

It also invites comparison with the financial tools government routinely makes available to businesses.

Ohio’s Tax Increment Financing program allows local governments to redirect certain revenues associated with increased property values toward eligible public infrastructure improvements. Property Assessed Clean Energy financing helps property owners finance qualifying improvements through assessments repaid over time. Job creation tax credits provide financial incentives to businesses that meet employment and investment commitments.

These programs have different legal structures and purposes. PACE financing, for example, generally involves repayment rather than an outright grant. Business incentives are also subject to scrutiny, and some have generated significant public controversy.

Nevertheless, they demonstrate government’s willingness to use financial tools to achieve objectives considered beneficial to the public.

The question is whether helping a financially struggling resident purchase food should be viewed as any less legitimate than encouraging a business to expand.

The public benefits are different, but both can serve a recognized governmental purpose.

There is also an administrative reality largely missing from the debate.

Community development corporations, commonly known as CDCs, have historically played an important role in distributing grocery cards. Under the reimbursement arrangements described by those familiar with the process, participating organizations may be required to purchase the cards before recovering their expenditures from the city.

For an organization handling a $50,000 distribution, that can mean advancing $50,000 of its own money.

When reimbursement can take up to six months, as has been reported in some instances, the CDC is effectively financing a municipal assistance program.

That arrangement presents a substantial challenge for smaller neighborhood organizations.

Most CDCs operating on Cleveland’s East Side do not have the financial flexibility to comfortably set aside $50,000 while continuing to meet payroll, maintain facilities, administer programs and satisfy existing obligations.

The problem has become more pronounced as neighborhood organizations have confronted a changing funding environment since 2022, including reductions in available support and increased competition for resources.

The pressure on these organizations was evident in the October 23 Development, Planning and Sustainability Committee hearings, where council members and city officials discussed CDC funding, program administration and possible changes to the distribution of federal Community Development Block Grant resources.

Officials acknowledged funding shortfalls affecting several organizations and discussed supplemental assistance and potential changes to future funding arrangements.

The connection to the gift card program is important. A city seeking to help low-income residents should not have to rely on financially strained nonprofits to carry the upfront cost of providing that assistance.

If the organizations closest to the communities cannot afford to participate, the administrative system itself becomes a barrier to delivering resources.

That is a problem worth solving before the next holiday distribution.

None of these concerns eliminate the need for accountability.

Ohio Auditor Keith Faber’s office identified documentation and eligibility problems involving gift card distributions in Wards 1 and 10. Findings reported in July 2026 included 88 cards distributed to individuals with addresses outside Cleveland and more than 1,500 missing or incomplete compliance forms across the two wards.

Those findings are serious and should not be dismissed.

Public funds require appropriate documentation, eligibility verification and safeguards against improper use.

At the same time, incomplete documentation does not automatically establish intentional corruption or election bribery.

Large-scale distributions involving hundreds of residents, limited staffing and eligibility requirements can be difficult to administer perfectly. That reality does not excuse administrative failures, but it should inform how those failures are evaluated and corrected.

A discrepancy is a discrepancy, whether it involves one record or hundreds. Every discrepancy deserves appropriate review. But the response should be based on its nature, significance and cause, rather than an assumption that every administrative error reflects deliberate wrongdoing.

The fairest approach would be a consistent examination of the program across every participating ward, using the same requirements and the same standards.

That broader perspective also matters when considering the attention directed toward individual council members.

Councilman Joe Jones weathered a significant political storm in 2025 surrounding questions about his ward’s gift card distributions. His name resurfaced during this year’s ethics discussion, even as the hearing was intended to address a citywide public-policy question.

The renewed attention raises a concern that a hostile political working environment may be developing around Jones, particularly given the controversies he experienced last year.

That concern does not establish that the committee intended to target him or that any coordinated effort exists. But repeatedly returning to one council member while debating a program used in multiple wards risks creating the appearance of selective scrutiny.

During the hearing, Councilman Richard Starr also questioned why the discussion appeared to focus on an individual ward and suggested that the conversation should be taken directly into the neighborhoods where residents receive the assistance.

The larger issue is not whether Jones, or any other elected official, should be questioned. Public officials must be accountable.

It is whether accountability is being applied consistently, without allowing a citywide administrative issue to become unnecessarily personalized.

By the conclusion of the October 22 hearing, Harsh acknowledged broad agreement that grocery gift cards serve a legitimate purpose and should remain available to residents who need them.

That provides a reasonable starting point for reform.

The city can strengthen eligibility verification, improve recordkeeping, establish clearer rules governing the involvement of elected officials and develop a more predictable reimbursement system.

It can also reconsider whether requiring neighborhood nonprofits to advance substantial sums is financially practical, particularly in the communities with the greatest need.

There is room for stronger oversight without abandoning a program that has become part of Cleveland’s holiday traditions.

There is also room to question the assumptions that accompany debates over assistance to low-income residents.

Government routinely accepts that public resources can be used to encourage economic activity, support development and improve communities. Assistance to vulnerable residents should be evaluated with the same seriousness and commitment to public benefit.

A $25 grocery card will not eliminate poverty. It will not resolve Cleveland’s food insecurity challenges or replace the need for meaningful economic opportunities.

But it can help someone purchase groceries.

And for the resident willing to spend two hours waiting to receive it, that assistance may be considerably more important than the political debate surrounding it.

The challenge for Cleveland is to preserve that benefit while creating a system that protects public resources, respects recipients and does not place an unreasonable financial burden on the organizations responsible for delivering assistance.

The question should not be whether government has a legitimate role in helping a struggling family purchase groceries.

It should be how Cleveland can do that responsibly, efficiently and with the same recognition of public value that it extends to other forms of government investment.

When we think about Election Day, we often focus on the candidates. We listen to speeches, watch debates, read campaign materials, and decide who we believe is best equipped to lead.

But behind every campaign promise is another question we don’t always ask:

What will it take to pay for it?

Candidates may talk about affordable housing, safer neighborhoods, stronger schools, better transportation, and opportunities for small businesses. Those issues matter. But turning a promise into progress requires more than words. It requires a plan, partnerships, and, often, an investment of public resources.

That is why, as we prepare to vote, we should think about the connection between our ballots and the budgets that shape our communities.

Budgets Reflect Priorities

A budget is more than a financial document. It tells a story about what leaders have decided to invest in—and what they may have decided can wait.

A community may hear that affordable housing is a priority. The next question is: What resources are being committed to preserving existing homes, helping residents make repairs, or creating housing people can afford?

A candidate may say they support small businesses. But what will that support look like? Will business owners have access to technical assistance, capital, commercial space, or opportunities to compete for contracts?

A public official may speak about safer neighborhoods. Are there investments in prevention, youth programs, neighborhood infrastructure, and other strategies that address the conditions affecting safety?

These questions do not have one-size-fits-all answers. Communities have different needs, and public officials must make difficult decisions with limited resources. But that makes it even more important for residents to understand how those decisions are made.

Follow the Money—and the Decision-Making

In a recent conversation about finding funding, I emphasized that knowing where the money is matters. The same principle applies when we think about our communities.

Public dollars flow through federal, state, county, and local governments. Each level makes decisions that can affect the resources available for housing, economic development, public health, education, and other community priorities.

But the path from a public budget to a neighborhood is not always obvious.

A federal program may provide resources, but state or local leaders may help determine how those resources are used. A city may make funds available, but community organizations, businesses, and residents may need information, partnerships, and capacity to access them.

That means we need to pay attention not only to how much money is available, but also to:

• Who decides how it is distributed?

• Which communities are positioned to benefit?

• What requirements must organizations or residents meet?

• Are the people most affected included in the conversation?

• How will we know whether the investment made a difference?

These are not questions reserved for elected officials or financial experts. They are community questions.

Look Beyond the Headline

Election season can move quickly. A compelling slogan or a promising headline may catch our attention, but it is worth taking time to look deeper.

When a candidate says they will support your community, consider asking:

• What specific issue are they proposing to address?

• What role would the office they are seeking have in addressing it?

• What is their plan to move from an idea to implementation?

• How do they propose to fund or support that plan?

• How will residents and community organizations be involved?

• How will progress be measured?

Not every candidate will have every detail worked out. And not every solution depends on new spending. But asking these questions can help us look beyond good intentions and understand how a leader thinks about action, accountability, and results.

Communities Need More Than a Promise

For many neighborhoods, the challenges are familiar. Residents and organizations have been discussing housing needs, vacant properties, access to capital, aging infrastructure, and economic opportunity for years.

They often know what needs attention. What they need is to be included when priorities are set, resources are allocated, and plans are put into action.

That is where community voice becomes essential. Residents bring lived experience. Community organizations bring relationships and knowledge of local needs. Businesses bring insight into what it takes to create and sustain economic activity. Together, they can help public leaders make decisions that reflect what is actually happening on the ground.

An election gives us an opportunity to consider who will be making those decisions and how they intend to work with the people affected by them.

Your Vote Is Connected to Your Community’s Future

As Election Day approaches, I encourage you to learn about the candidates, offices, and issues on your ballot. Consider the priorities that matter most to you and your community. Then look at the plans—and the decisions behind those plans.

Because the choices made by elected leaders can influence which projects move forward, which services are available, and where opportunities grow.

Your ballot is a voice in those choices. And behind many of the decisions made after Election Day is a budget that can help turn a community priority into action.

As you prepare to vote, ask yourself: Are the leaders I’m considering prepared to invest in the future they are asking me to believe in?

With more than two decades of experience in community development, real estate strategy, and organizational leadership, Joy Johnson brings a seasoned, solutions-focused voice to the field. She is committed to helping communities and institutions avoid systemic pitfalls and build models that truly work. To reach Joy, call (216) 238-2415.

American businesses are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, purchasing software, automating administrative work and experimenting with technology that promises to transform productivity.

Yet a growing question hangs over the investment boom: How much of that spending is producing measurable financial benefits?

Technology companies supplying AI infrastructure, cloud computing and software have reported substantial demand. Nvidia, Microsoft and other major technology firms have benefited from the rapid expansion of AI-related investment.

But strong revenues for companies selling artificial intelligence do not necessarily mean that the businesses buying it are experiencing comparable financial returns.

For small businesses, nonprofits and community institutions operating with limited budgets, that distinction could determine whether AI becomes a valuable operating tool or another recurring expense.

The Productivity Question

Research has documented both AI’s potential and the difficulty of translating that potential into organization-wide financial results.

A 2023 study by researchers at Stanford University and MIT examined more than 5,000 customer-support workers using a generative AI assistant. Productivity increased by approximately 14% on average, with particularly strong improvements among less-experienced workers.

The findings demonstrated that AI can improve performance in specific workplace activities.

However, improvements in individual tasks do not automatically produce equivalent increases in organizational profits.

An employee who completes a report in 20 minutes instead of an hour may become more productive. But unless the organization uses the additional time effectively, reduces costs or increases output, the financial benefit may remain difficult to identify.

That distinction is especially important for organizations purchasing multiple AI subscriptions without establishing clear performance goals.

Why Smaller Organizations Face Different Challenges

Large corporations can dedicate significant resources to testing technology, redesigning workflows and measuring results.

Smaller organizations frequently lack those capabilities.

A neighborhood business might adopt AI to handle customer inquiries, develop marketing materials or manage appointments. A nonprofit might use it to assist with grant research, reporting or administrative tasks.

These applications can be useful. But the economic value depends on what actually changes.

Does the business serve more customers? Are employees spending fewer paid hours on repetitive work? Has revenue increased? Have administrative expenses declined?

For nonprofits, the calculation can be more complicated. Technology may improve service delivery without immediately reducing spending. In those cases, measures such as processing time, service capacity, error rates and cost per client served may provide a clearer picture.

The Difference Between Adoption and Return

A 2025 MIT research initiative report drew widespread attention by finding that most organizations in its sample had not achieved measurable financial returns from their generative AI initiatives.

The report’s methodology and definition of success require careful interpretation. Its findings should not be treated as proof that 95% of all AI investments fail.

Still, the research highlighted an important challenge: Purchasing advanced technology is easier than integrating it into everyday operations.

Independent economic research has also suggested that AI’s productivity effects may take time to appear across the broader economy, particularly when businesses must first change how work is organized.

A Financial Test for AI

Organizations considering AI investments can begin with a straightforward assessment.

Identify the cost of the technology, the work it is intended to improve and the financial or operational results expected within a defined period.

Then measure the results against the original baseline.

Labor hours saved, administrative costs reduced, additional revenue, fewer errors and improved service delivery are more useful indicators than the number of AI tools purchased.

The calculation should also include implementation costs, employee training, oversight and the expense of correcting mistakes.

Artificial intelligence may ultimately become one of the most consequential productivity technologies in decades.

But its economic success will not be determined solely by the billions invested in data centers, software and semiconductor chips.

For the organizations paying to use it, the more important question is whether the technology improves financial performance, strengthens operations and creates value that can actually be measured.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio is approaching an October 28 deadline for communities seeking consideration under the next round of federal Opportunity Zone designations, a process that could influence where investment flows into housing, commercial property and businesses for years to come.

The federal Opportunity Zone program offers tax advantages to investors who direct qualifying capital into designated lower-income communities. Created under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the program was designed to encourage private investment in neighborhoods that have historically struggled to attract financing.

New federal legislation enacted in 2025 made Opportunity Zones a continuing part of the tax code, with a new designation process beginning in 2026.

For Ohio communities, the immediate challenge is identifying eligible census tracts and positioning them for consideration. The larger challenge is ensuring that future investment produces measurable benefits for people and businesses already located there.

Investment Does Not Automatically Create Local Wealth

Opportunity Zones can make development projects more attractive by reducing certain federal capital-gains taxes for qualifying investors.

That incentive may help finance apartment buildings, commercial rehabilitation, industrial facilities and new businesses that otherwise struggle to secure capital.

But the location of an investment does not necessarily determine who benefits.

A new commercial development might increase property values while creating relatively few opportunities for neighborhood entrepreneurs. Housing construction could expand supply while remaining unaffordable to existing residents. Outside investors might capture most of the financial returns even when a project succeeds.

These outcomes are not inevitable, but they demonstrate why investment totals alone provide an incomplete measure of economic progress.

What Earlier Opportunity Zones Revealed

Research on the original program found that Opportunity Zone investment was unevenly distributed.

Studies by economists and federal researchers have identified substantial investment activity in some designated communities, particularly through real estate projects. Evidence of broader improvements in employment, household income and neighborhood well-being has been more mixed.

The program’s design also matters. Investors generally receive tax benefits based on qualifying investments, rather than meeting specific targets for local hiring, affordable housing or minority-owned business participation.

Consequently, communities seeking long-term benefits may need to establish additional expectations through development agreements, local financing arrangements and public reporting.

The Opportunity for Ohio Businesses

For small and Black-owned businesses, the next round of designations could create opportunities in construction, property rehabilitation, professional services, neighborhood retail and commercial development.

However, receiving an Opportunity Zone designation does not automatically provide a grant or direct financing to an existing business.

Entrepreneurs still need access to investors, viable projects, financial records and the capacity to negotiate competitive terms.

Local governments and development organizations could help by connecting investors with existing businesses, identifying redevelopment opportunities and preparing smaller companies to participate.

The distinction between attracting capital and building local ownership is critical.

A community that gains new buildings but loses established businesses may experience redevelopment without a corresponding increase in locally retained wealth.

Measuring Success Beyond Investment Announcements

As Ohio considers future designations, several questions deserve attention.

How many locally owned businesses will receive investment? How many residents will obtain permanent jobs? Will affordable commercial space remain available? Will existing homeowners and tenants benefit from neighborhood improvements?

Equally important is whether communities establish baseline measurements before new investments arrive.

Without those figures, officials may be able to report millions of dollars invested but struggle to demonstrate how residents’ economic circumstances changed.

Ohio’s next Opportunity Zones could become powerful tools for redevelopment.

Whether they become tools for lasting community wealth will depend on more than which neighborhoods receive the designation. It will depend on who owns the businesses, who receives the contracts and how much of the economic benefit remains after the investors have collected their returns.

FORT VALLEY, Ga. — German automaker Audi plans to invest approximately $4 billion in its first U.S. manufacturing facility, bringing thousands of jobs and the prospect of a new automotive supply chain to Middle Georgia.

The factory, announced October 24, will be built at the Middle Georgia Megasite in Peach County. Audi expects to begin site grading in 2027, construction in 2028 and full production in 2031. The facility is designed to manufacture as many as 200,000 vehicles annually and employ approximately 4,500 people.

For Georgia, the announcement represents a major industrial investment. For local businesses, the more consequential question is how much of that investment they will actually capture.

A Multibillion-Dollar Opportunity, But for Whom?

Building an automotive factory requires extensive construction, infrastructure and equipment installation. Contractors specializing in electrical systems, concrete, mechanical work, transportation and industrial services could potentially benefit.

However, Audi has not publicly detailed how much of its announced investment will be spent on construction contracts, which companies will manage those contracts or what portion will be available to local subcontractors.

The $4 billion figure represents the planned overall investment, not a pool of money automatically available to small businesses.

That distinction matters.

Major industrial projects frequently rely on established national and international contractors. Smaller regional firms may participate, but access often depends on bonding capacity, insurance, safety qualifications, specialized experience and sufficient working capital.

Businesses that wait until construction begins to prepare could find themselves competing for opportunities already committed to other suppliers.

Getting Into Audi’s Supply Chain

The opportunities could extend well beyond construction.

Once operational, the factory will require parts, equipment maintenance, logistics, packaging, technology and other services.

Audi has identified Georgia’s existing automotive supplier network as one reason for selecting the location. But established suppliers may have advantages over smaller companies seeking their first major manufacturing contract.

For Black-owned businesses, meaningful participation should be measured through verified procurement data rather than assumptions about inclusion or exclusion.

How many local and Black-owned firms will qualify to bid? What contracts will they receive? How much purchasing will remain in Peach, Houston and Macon-Bibb counties?

Those answers are not established by the investment announcement.

Preparing Workers and Businesses

Georgia Quick Start will work with Audi on customized workforce training, including partnerships with the Technical College System of Georgia.

That creates a pathway for residents seeking manufacturing careers. The announced jobs, however, remain future positions rather than employment already created.

Small businesses face a different readiness challenge.

Manufacturers and contractors seeking opportunities will need sound accounting systems, financing, workforce capacity and documented qualifications. Local lenders and economic-development organizations could help companies prepare before major purchasing decisions are made.

The region’s ability to develop qualified suppliers may determine whether Audi’s presence produces a lasting network of locally owned businesses.

Measuring What Remains After the Announcement

Audi’s investment could reshape Middle Georgia’s economy. But the project’s ultimate value cannot be measured solely by the size of the factory or the number of jobs announced.

A fuller assessment would examine local contract awards, supplier participation, wages, workforce advancement and the growth of businesses headquartered in surrounding communities.

Those measures would reveal whether the investment creates lasting local wealth or primarily benefits companies already positioned to serve major manufacturers.

For Georgia, attracting Audi is a significant achievement.

The next test is whether the region can turn that investment into opportunities local businesses are prepared to win.

WASHINGTON — The United States is moving to expand restrictions on American investment in sensitive foreign technologies, intensifying an economic dispute with China and creating another layer of uncertainty for companies operating across international markets.

The Treasury Department released proposed regulations Thursday that would broaden an existing program restricting certain investments involving countries of national-security concern.

The proposal covers technologies including artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors, quantum computing, supercomputing, hypersonic systems and biotechnology.

China responded Saturday by urging Washington to abandon the expansion, warning that the restrictions could damage economic relations between the world’s two largest economies.

For American businesses, the issue extends beyond diplomacy. Companies developing technology, raising investment capital or establishing international partnerships may face additional compliance obligations before making major financial commitments.

National Security or Commercial Restriction?

Washington argues that some investments do more than provide money. They can also transfer technical knowledge, management expertise and access to commercial networks that help foreign companies develop advanced technologies with military or intelligence applications.

The proposed regulations implement legislation enacted in 2025 and build on restrictions first established under the Biden administration.

Importantly, the proposal is not a blanket prohibition on American companies investing overseas.

Instead, it identifies particular technologies, transactions and foreign entities that could trigger mandatory reporting or outright prohibitions.

Certain ordinary financial transactions, including many purchases of publicly traded securities, would remain outside the restrictions.

That distinction is important for executives. A company buying shares in an international technology fund may face different requirements from a venture capital firm directly financing a foreign artificial intelligence developer.

The legal question is not simply where an investment occurs, but who receives the investment, what technology is involved and whether the transaction falls within the regulations.

China Warns of Economic Consequences

China’s Commerce Ministry criticized the proposal as discriminatory and warned that Beijing could take countermeasures.

The Chinese government argues that Washington is extending national-security restrictions into areas of legitimate commercial activity.

U.S. officials maintain that the measures are narrowly directed at technologies that could strengthen foreign military, surveillance or intelligence capabilities.

Both positions reflect a larger disagreement over whether advanced technology can be separated from national security in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

The Business Cost of Uncertainty

For American companies, regulatory uncertainty can affect decisions long before a transaction is prohibited.

Investment funds may reconsider overseas partnerships. Technology startups could face additional questions from prospective investors. Manufacturers may need to examine whether their suppliers, research relationships or foreign subsidiaries create exposure under the rules.

Smaller companies could be particularly sensitive to the cost of obtaining specialized legal advice and conducting due diligence.

At the same time, restrictions on foreign investment could encourage some capital to flow toward domestic technology development. Whether that produces meaningful new investment and jobs in the United States remains uncertain.

The economic trade-off is significant: protecting sensitive technologies without unnecessarily discouraging legitimate commercial investment, research and innovation.

What Executives Should Watch

Treasury is accepting public comments through December 7 before issuing final regulations.

Companies considering long-term investments should pay close attention to the final definitions of covered technologies, prohibited transactions, reporting requirements and exceptions.

The proposal also underscores the importance of reviewing international business relationships before committing capital.

For executives planning investments over the next five to ten years, geopolitical risk is becoming an increasingly important part of financial strategy.

Washington’s objective is to prevent American capital from strengthening foreign national-security threats. China’s concern is that the restrictions will increasingly limit ordinary economic cooperation.

The outcome will help determine where companies invest, which technologies attract financing and how American businesses compete in a global market where commercial opportunity and national security are becoming harder to separate.

New federal designations could open contracting opportunities in underserved communities. But qualifying geographically is only the first step toward winning government business.

WASHINGTON — A change in a federal map can create a new opportunity for a small business. It cannot guarantee that business will have the financing, employees or management systems necessary to win a government contract.

The Small Business Administration is expanding access to its Historically Underutilized Business Zones, or HUBZone, program, which gives qualifying small businesses opportunities to compete for certain federal contracts.

The program is intended to direct more federal purchasing activity toward communities facing economic disadvantages.

For businesses located in newly eligible areas, the designations could provide another pathway into the federal marketplace. But the economic impact will depend on how many companies can convert eligibility into actual contract awards.

What HUBZone Certification Requires

The HUBZone program provides qualifying businesses access to set-aside contracts, certain sole-source awards and a price evaluation preference in full and open federal competitions.

Certification involves more than maintaining an address in a designated area.

A qualifying business generally must be small under applicable SBA size standards, meet ownership requirements and maintain its principal office in a HUBZone.

At least 35% of its employees generally must reside in HUBZones, subject to program rules and exceptions.

Businesses must also provide documentation supporting ownership, employee residency, principal-office location and other eligibility requirements.

These requirements can be especially challenging for growing companies whose workforce or operations change over time.

What Changes in Ohio and Georgia?

New HUBZone designations do not mean that Ohio and Georgia previously lacked eligible communities.

Both states already contain qualifying census tracts and other designated areas. Businesses in those locations may already be eligible to seek certification.

The latest federal changes could extend eligibility to additional locations, depending on the specific designations and applicable effective dates.

That distinction matters for business owners who may mistakenly believe the entire state has become eligible or that every company in a newly designated community automatically receives HUBZone status.

Eligibility must be confirmed through SBA’s official HUBZone map, and certification requires a separate application and review.

The Challenge Beyond Certification

A federal contracting preference can help a qualified business compete. It does not eliminate the cost of delivering the work.

Contractors may need to purchase materials, hire employees, obtain insurance and meet payroll before receiving government payments.

For smaller firms, those expenses can create substantial cash-flow pressure.

Businesses also need accurate accounting systems, competitive pricing, reliable subcontractors and the ability to satisfy federal procurement requirements.

Without those capabilities, certification may produce little measurable economic benefit.

Community lenders, technical-assistance organizations and economic-development agencies can help businesses prepare by connecting them with working capital, procurement training and financial-management support.

Will the Benefits Reach Local Communities?

The HUBZone program is designed to encourage investment and employment in economically distressed areas.

But meaningful results should be measured beyond the number of businesses receiving certification.

Federal officials and local economic-development organizations should also examine contract awards, dollars reaching participating firms, jobs supported and whether companies remain competitive over time.

For communities in Ohio and Georgia, those outcomes would provide a clearer picture of whether expanded eligibility translates into stronger local economies.

Washington can expand access to federal contracting through geographic designations.

The larger challenge is ensuring that businesses in those communities have the capital, documentation and operational capacity to use the opportunity.

A place on the HUBZone map may open the door. Business readiness determines whether a company can walk through it.

New Treasury regulations could reshape competition for single-family homes. Whether families and smaller developers benefit will depend on financing, housing supply and how the rules are implemented.

WASHINGTON — For years, families trying to purchase homes have faced competition from institutional investors with access to substantial capital. Now Washington is moving to restrict some of those purchases.

On October 22, the Treasury Department proposed regulations implementing a federal law that limits large institutional investors’ ability to acquire additional single-family homes.

The changes could give individual buyers and smaller investors more opportunities to compete. But restricting large purchasers will not automatically make housing affordable or increase the number of homes available.

What the New Restrictions Actually Do

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, enacted in July, generally prohibits qualifying institutional investors that control at least 350 single-family homes from purchasing additional properties beginning January 7, 2027.

The threshold includes direct and indirect investment control, meaning companies cannot necessarily avoid the restriction by distributing properties among related entities.

The law itself established the prohibition and its exceptions. Treasury’s October 22 proposal explains how certain requirements would operate.

The distinction is important: Congress has already enacted the restriction, but Treasury’s proposed implementation details remain subject to public comment and possible revision.

Violations could result in civil penalties of up to the greater of $1 million or three times the property’s purchase price.

Why Some Institutional Purchases Would Continue

The law does not eliminate institutional investment in housing.

Exceptions include qualifying build-to-rent developments, substantial rehabilitation projects, certain homeownership programs and specified financial transactions.

Treasury proposes standards intended to preserve investment in new construction and the rehabilitation of deteriorated properties.

Under its proposal, qualifying build-to-rent purchases would generally involve newly constructed homes. A proposed rehabilitation safe harbor would address properties requiring significant improvements.

Other provisions would clarify programs helping renters become homeowners, including financial assistance and opportunities for tenants to purchase their homes.

These exceptions recognize that institutional capital can finance housing construction and rehabilitation, even as policymakers seek to reduce competition with individual homebuyers.

Could Smaller Businesses Benefit?

If large investors purchase fewer existing homes, smaller developers and prospective homeowners could face less competition in some markets.

That could create opportunities for local rehabilitation contractors, property investors and businesses specializing in restoring vacant or deteriorated housing.

But opportunity is not the same as access.

Small developers frequently confront expensive financing, construction costs, insurance requirements and limited working capital. A property that becomes available may remain beyond their financial reach.

Community lenders and development organizations could play an important role by providing acquisition financing, rehabilitation loans and technical assistance.

The impact will also vary geographically. Institutional investors hold a relatively small share of homes nationally, but their ownership is concentrated in particular markets.

Consequently, the restrictions may have greater effects in some communities than others.

Will Families Actually See Lower Prices?

The policy’s central objective is to expand homeownership opportunities.

Yet home prices depend on more than investor competition. Mortgage rates, household income, available housing, construction costs and local supply all influence affordability.

Restricting large investors does not automatically produce new houses or make mortgage financing easier to obtain.

For communities with substantial numbers of vacant or deteriorating properties, rehabilitation capacity may be just as important as purchase restrictions.

The strongest results would likely come from combining investor limits with homebuyer financing, affordable construction, rehabilitation assistance and stronger local development capacity.

The real measure of success will not simply be how many institutional purchases are prevented.

It will be whether more families become homeowners, more neglected properties return to productive use and smaller businesses gain sustainable opportunities to participate in the housing economy.

Blue Bird's investment in Fort Valley could create opportunities for contractors, suppliers and workers. But the size of the announcement tells only part of the economic-development story.

FORT VALLEY, Ga. — A $300 million manufacturing expansion is the kind of announcement economic-development officials welcome. It promises investment, potential employment growth and new activity for the surrounding region.

But for small businesses in Fort Valley and neighboring communities, the more important question may be how much of that spending remains in the local economy.

School bus manufacturer Blue Bird is pursuing a major expansion of its Fort Valley operations, reinforcing the company’s longstanding manufacturing presence in central Georgia.

The investment could generate business for construction firms, equipment suppliers, transportation companies and manufacturers providing components or specialized services.

Whether those opportunities reach locally owned businesses will depend on how contracts are awarded, which suppliers qualify and how aggressively smaller companies are included.

The Opportunity Beyond the Factory

A manufacturing expansion generates several kinds of economic activity.

Construction and site preparation can create near-term demand for electricians, mechanical contractors, concrete companies and other trades. Equipment installation and facility operations can produce additional purchasing opportunities.

Once production expands, manufacturers need parts, materials, maintenance, logistics and professional services.

Some of those purchases may go to established national suppliers. Others could potentially be fulfilled by companies in Peach County and the surrounding region.

The distinction matters because a major investment does not automatically translate into a similarly large increase in local business revenue.

A project can generate significant economic activity while much of its purchasing flows to companies headquartered elsewhere.

Who Gets Access to the Supply Chain?

For smaller manufacturers, winning a contract with an established industrial company often requires more than competitive pricing.

Suppliers may need specialized certifications, adequate insurance, quality-control systems, reliable production capacity and sufficient working capital to deliver before receiving payment.

Those requirements serve legitimate operational purposes, but they can also make entry difficult for businesses that have never supplied a major manufacturer.

Economic-development organizations, lenders and technical-assistance providers can help bridge that gap by preparing businesses for procurement opportunities before contracts are awarded.

For Black-owned businesses, the central question is measurable participation.

How many are qualified suppliers? How many have opportunities to bid? How many ultimately receive contracts, and what is the value of those awards?

Those figures should be established through company procurement records, supplier disclosures or independent reporting rather than assumptions about who will benefit or be excluded.

Jobs Matter. So Does Local Wealth.

Blue Bird’s expansion could also support employment and household income in central Georgia.

But job announcements alone cannot establish the long-term economic impact of an investment.

The quality of those jobs, local hiring, wages, training opportunities and employee retention all influence whether the surrounding community experiences lasting gains.

Local supplier participation adds another dimension. When businesses based in the region receive contracts, their revenue can support additional hiring, equipment purchases, tax payments and business growth.

That is how a manufacturing investment can potentially create wealth beyond the factory gates.

Measuring the Full Return

Georgia has an opportunity to evaluate Blue Bird’s expansion using more than the traditional measures of announced investment and employment.

Useful indicators would include local purchasing, contracts awarded to small businesses, supplier development, workforce training and the participation of historically underrepresented firms.

Those measures would not diminish the significance of the investment. They would help establish how widely its benefits are distributed.

For Fort Valley, the question is not simply whether a $300 million manufacturing expansion will strengthen Blue Bird.

It is whether the investment will also help build a stronger network of locally owned businesses capable of competing long after construction is complete.

Federal officials are reviewing contracts involving 689 firms removed from a program for disadvantaged businesses. The investigation could expose improper awards, but it also highlights the importance of financial records, certification accuracy and accountability.

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of businesses that previously qualified for federal contracting preferences are facing a new examination of the government work they received.

The Small Business Administration announced Wednesday that it referred 689 firms to the General Services Administration for a review of their past federal contracts.

The businesses were removed from SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program after failing to meet program requirements. Some exceeded financial eligibility limits, while others failed to provide financial records requested by the agency.

Federal officials say the review will determine whether those companies improperly received contracts reserved for eligible disadvantaged small businesses.

The announcement carries implications beyond the firms under investigation. It raises questions about how government contracting programs are administered and what businesses must do to maintain eligibility after receiving certification.

A Review of Billions in Contracting Authority

The 8(a) program helps qualifying socially and economically disadvantaged businesses compete for federal contracts through training, technical assistance and access to certain competitive and sole-source awards.

According to GSA, the 689 firms received contracts with a combined ceiling of approximately $5.5 billion.

That figure represents the maximum potential value of the contracts, not necessarily the amount paid to the businesses or the value of any proven wrongdoing.

The review will examine whether awards involved inaccurate financial representations, improper eligibility claims or arrangements in which certified businesses improperly passed work to other companies.

Potential evidence of fraud may be referred to the Department of Justice.

But an important distinction remains: Failure to comply with an administrative requirement is not, by itself, proof of fraud.

A company that failed to submit requested documents may have violated program requirements. Establishing intentional financial misrepresentation or criminal wrongdoing requires additional evidence.

The agencies have not announced that all 689 firms committed fraud.

Why Financial Documentation Matters

The investigation follows SBA’s December 2025 demand that approximately 4,300 participating businesses submit three years of financial records.

Requested materials included bank statements, financial statements, general ledgers, payroll records and contracting agreements.

The agency subsequently moved to suspend or remove businesses that failed to comply or no longer satisfied financial eligibility requirements.

For legitimate contractors, the lesson extends beyond avoiding an investigation.

Federal certifications carry continuing obligations. Business owners must monitor eligibility, maintain accurate financial information and comply with program rules as their companies grow.

A firm may qualify when initially certified but later exceed financial thresholds or experience ownership and operational changes affecting eligibility.

Those developments must be addressed through the applicable certification and reporting procedures.

What Happens to Legitimate Small Businesses?

The government’s stated objective is to protect contracting opportunities intended for eligible businesses.

If companies improperly obtain set-aside contracts, legitimate small businesses may lose opportunities they were qualified to pursue.

At the same time, increased scrutiny can create administrative burdens for compliant firms, particularly smaller contractors without dedicated accounting or legal departments.

Businesses may need additional resources to maintain financial records, document subcontracting arrangements and respond to agency inquiries.

For disadvantaged business owners who already face barriers to financing and government procurement, those costs can be significant.

Effective oversight must therefore distinguish between deliberate abuse, eligibility problems and correctable administrative deficiencies.

That distinction matters to taxpayers and to the businesses these programs were designed to support.

Winning the Contract Is Only the Beginning

Federal contracting can create substantial growth opportunities, but an award also brings financial and operational responsibilities.

Contractors must manage payroll, subcontractors, performance requirements and cash flow while maintaining the documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance.

For smaller firms, weak accounting systems or incomplete records can threaten eligibility even when the business is capable of performing the work.

The SBA-GSA review underscores a larger reality: Access to federal contracts is only one measure of business readiness.

The ability to retain those opportunities depends on sound governance, reliable financial controls and continued compliance.

Washington’s investigation may ultimately identify wrongdoing, administrative failures or a combination of both.

For businesses still competing, the immediate message is clear. Certification can open the door to federal contracting, but maintaining accurate records and meeting program requirements are essential to keeping it open.

I didn’t meet Fallon Radigan on the campaign trail. I didn’t meet her at a political fundraiser, a candidate forum, or an endorsement meeting.

I met her doing something that told me a great deal about who she was long before she ever decided to run for judge.

It was in 2019, and Fallon was working in the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, where she served as director of the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Her work involved protecting children from sexual exploitation, investigating crimes against children, and educating families about the dangers their children faced, particularly online.

I encountered her in the heart of Cleveland’s Black community, giving a presentation about protecting our children.

What struck me wasn’t simply how much she knew. It was how much she cared.

She was passionate, knowledgeable, and genuinely concerned about the safety and innocence of children in our county. She wasn’t going through the motions. You could see that she believed in what she was doing.

I was impressed enough that I asked whether she would come and make that same presentation to our Ministerial Alliance.

She didn’t hesitate.

She came, shared her knowledge, answered questions, and helped our clergy better understand the threats facing children and what we could do to protect them.

And it didn’t stop there.

When our churches or other community organizations reached out to her, she responded. She made herself available. She was gracious, approachable, and willing to help.

There were no cameras following her around. No campaign signs. No election to win.

She was simply doing her job, and doing it with a level of passion and commitment that stayed with me.

That matters to me.

Over the years, I’ve encountered plenty of people who discover the importance of our communities when they need something from us. They attend our churches, visit our neighborhoods, and seek relationships when an election approaches.

That wasn’t my experience with Fallon Radigan.

She was already here.

She was working with our churches, educating our families, and helping protect our children when there was no political benefit to doing so.

And she was comfortable with us. She didn’t approach our community like an outsider checking a box. She treated people with dignity and respect. She listened, she engaged, and she made people feel that their concerns mattered.

I saw that personally.

My support for Fallon today grows out of those experiences. It wasn’t something she had to ask me for. It developed because I had the opportunity to see her character when there was nothing politically at stake.

I believe we have a responsibility to take judicial elections seriously. The people we put on the bench make decisions that affect families, children, victims, defendants, and entire communities. Their judgment, fairness, temperament, and respect for people matter enormously.

And when I consider who should hold that responsibility, I don’t begin with campaign literature or political endorsements.

I begin with what I know.

I know how Fallon treated our community when she wasn’t asking for votes. I know the commitment she demonstrated to protecting children. I know the respect she showed our ministers, our churches, and the families we serve.

I watched someone who understood that public safety isn’t just about what happens after a crime has been committed. It’s also about educating people, preventing harm, and giving families the information they need to protect themselves.

That kind of commitment tells me something about how a person approaches public service.

I don’t expect everyone to support a candidate simply because I do. People should examine the qualifications, experience, temperament, and records of those seeking to become judges. They should talk to people who have worked with these candidates and seen them carry out their responsibilities.

That’s exactly the kind of firsthand experience that informs my own decision.

My responsibility is to advocate for what I believe is in the best interest of our community. That means supporting people who have demonstrated the ability, character, and commitment to serve it well.

For me, Fallon Radigan has demonstrated those qualities.

I believe she is the best person in this race to serve as judge.

And I can say that with confidence because my opinion of her wasn’t formed during this election.

It was formed years ago, watching her serve our community when she had absolutely nothing to gain politically.

Fallon Radigan didn’t have to run for judge to earn my respect. She had already earned it.

Jerry Primm is a Minister, Cleveland community leader and founder of The SOLUTION, a community-based think tank.

WASHINGTON — America’s housing slowdown is becoming a serious problem for more than people trying to buy or sell homes.

New housing data point to weakening demand and slower construction, threatening the smaller businesses that depend on residential development for their livelihoods.

Pending home sales fell 7.3% in September, according to the National Association of Realtors, pushing its index to 66.0, the lowest reading since the series began in 2001. Sales contracts declined in every region, falling 11.3% from a year earlier.

The Census Bureau also reported that housing starts declined 5.2% in September to an annualized rate of approximately 1.22 million units, down 7.4% from September 2025.

Although monthly construction figures can fluctuate, the broader slowdown reflects persistent affordability challenges, elevated borrowing costs and rising construction expenses.

The Businesses Behind Every Home

Residential construction supports far more than developers and real estate agents.

Electricians, plumbers, roofers, landscapers, truck drivers, equipment operators and building-material suppliers all depend on a steady flow of projects.

Many are independently owned businesses with limited reserves. When construction slows, contracts disappear while equipment payments, insurance and payroll obligations remain.

The National Association of Home Builders reported that builder confidence fell to 29 in October, its lowest level since June 2012. Nearly two-thirds of builders offered sales incentives, while 43% reduced prices.

Those discounts may attract buyers, but they also reduce the margins needed to finance future construction.

For smaller contractors, fewer projects can mean postponed hiring, reduced work hours or difficulty maintaining operations.

The Economic Impact Reaches Entire Communities

Housing construction generates employment, local purchasing and future property-tax revenue.

When development slows, communities can experience reduced demand for construction services, fewer business opportunities and delayed growth in their tax bases.

The effects are particularly significant for smaller construction firms that lack the financial flexibility of national developers.

A prolonged downturn could also push skilled workers into other industries, making it harder to rebuild construction capacity when demand returns.

Not every housing-related business faces the same conditions. Homeowners who cannot afford to move may invest in repairs and renovations, creating opportunities for maintenance contractors.

But remodeling activity cannot necessarily replace the economic contribution of new residential development.

Affordable Housing Faces an Additional Challenge

Community-based developers are confronting the same rising costs while attempting to produce homes affordable to lower- and middle-income households.

Land, labor, materials, permits and financing must all be paid for before a completed project generates revenue.

When buyers cannot qualify for mortgages at prices sufficient to cover those expenses, developments may be postponed or abandoned.

Public grants, tax credits and subsidized loans can help close financing gaps, but they cannot eliminate construction costs or guarantee project viability.

Smaller developers, including minority-owned construction companies seeking to move into property development, may face additional barriers involving collateral, lender relationships and working capital.

The result is a troubling contradiction: America needs more housing, but the financial conditions required to produce it are discouraging construction.

Preparing for a Prolonged Slowdown

For construction-related businesses, access to financing is only one part of financial readiness.

A company may qualify for a loan to purchase equipment or hire employees, but that investment becomes risky if customer demand continues weakening.

Owners must evaluate cash reserves, operating costs, project pipelines and their ability to withstand delayed payments.

Diversifying into maintenance, commercial construction or public infrastructure work may provide alternatives, although those markets carry their own requirements and risks.

The stakes extend beyond individual companies.

If smaller contractors close, skilled workers leave the industry and community developers abandon projects, the country could lose construction capacity precisely when more housing is needed.

America’s housing shortage has not disappeared. What is weakening is the economic incentive to build.

The challenge is no longer simply making homes affordable to purchase. It is also making them financially possible to build—and ensuring the small businesses responsible for that work can survive until demand returns.

WASHINGTON — A company doing business with the federal government may know which software it purchased without knowing which artificial intelligence system operates behind it.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important following a federal order restricting DeepSeek, the Chinese artificial intelligence developer whose technology has attracted attention for its capabilities and relatively low costs.

The Department of Homeland Security has directed federal civilian agencies to remove covered DeepSeek technology from their systems and exclude it from future procurements. The restriction also reaches certain third-party products incorporating DeepSeek implementations.

For government contractors, the decision raises a question that extends beyond one Chinese technology company: Who is responsible when restricted technology is embedded inside products supplied by another vendor?

Why Washington Is Restricting DeepSeek

The order follows a recommendation from the Federal Acquisition Security Council under legislation designed to protect federal information systems and supply chains.

Federal officials cited concerns about sensitive information, foreign access to data and potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

China has criticized American restrictions on Chinese technology, arguing that national security concerns are being used to discriminate against its companies.

The order does not prohibit every American business from using DeepSeek. Its direct requirements concern federal civilian agency systems and procurement, although contractors supplying those agencies may be affected.

The Risk for Smaller Federal Contractors

Artificial intelligence increasingly operates behind ordinary business software, including document-management platforms, customer-service applications and research tools.

A contractor may purchase software from an American company without realizing that part of the service relies on DeepSeek technology.

That creates potential compliance problems when the software is delivered to a federal customer.

Large contractors often employ cybersecurity specialists and compliance attorneys. Smaller businesses may depend on outside vendors and lack the resources to investigate every technology component.

Replacing a restricted system could require additional software purchases, employee training, security testing and changes to project schedules.

For a company operating under a fixed-price contract, those expenses can significantly reduce profitability.

However, the order does not automatically make every contractor legally responsible for undisclosed technology in a vendor’s product. Specific obligations depend on applicable procurement rules and contract requirements.

Cybersecurity Is Becoming a Business Requirement

The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Risk Management Framework emphasizes identifying and managing risks associated with artificial intelligence, including third-party systems.

For federal contractors, that means understanding not only what software does, but also how it handles information and which technologies support it.

Businesses may need to strengthen vendor reviews, maintain accurate software inventories and document compliance with federal requirements.

These responsibilities can create additional expenses, but they may also produce opportunities for smaller technology firms offering cybersecurity assessments, compliant software and system-integration services.

The implications extend beyond government contracting.

Nonprofit organizations, healthcare providers and community institutions increasingly use AI-enabled technology to manage information and deliver services. Although the DeepSeek order does not automatically apply to those organizations, similar questions about data security and vendor accountability remain relevant.

The Larger Business Question

Artificial intelligence promises greater productivity, lower operating costs and new business opportunities.

But those advantages can disappear when organizations cannot identify the technology they rely on or demonstrate that it meets customer requirements.

For small federal contractors, capital readiness is therefore becoming more than access to financing. It also involves cybersecurity, reliable vendors, contract compliance and the ability to manage unexpected technology expenses.

Washington’s DeepSeek restriction illustrates a broader shift in government purchasing.

Federal customers are increasingly concerned with where technology originates, how it handles information and who is accountable when something goes wrong.

For businesses competing for government contracts, understanding those risks may become just as important as offering the lowest price or the best technical solution.

Reflections from CEO 360’s Where’s the Money? workshop

Nearly 40 people gathered at Midtown Tech Hive for a conversation about a question that nonprofit leaders know all too well: Where’s the money?

It’s a question I’ve heard throughout my career in nonprofit leadership. It’s a question I’ve asked myself. And it’s a question that has become even more urgent as organizations navigate shifting funding priorities, increased competition for resources, and growing community needs.

But as we explored during CEO 360’s recent workshop, Beyond the Grind: Where’s the Money?, perhaps we’ve been asking an incomplete question.

The conversation wasn’t just about finding money. It was about understanding how money moves, what makes an organization ready to receive it, and why relationships matter as much as a compelling mission.

Three themes stood out.

1. There’s More Money Than Grant Money

For many nonprofit organizations, fundraising has become synonymous with grant writing.

We search grant databases. We track application deadlines. We spend countless hours preparing proposals, gathering attachments, and hoping our organizations will be selected.

And while grants are an important part of nonprofit financing, they are only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

During the workshop, we challenged participants to broaden their understanding of where funding comes from.

Government contracts, corporate partnerships, earned revenue, individual giving, program-related investments, and other financing opportunities can all play a role in supporting an organization’s mission.

The question isn’t simply, “What grants are available?”

It’s “What resources exist to support the work we’re trying to accomplish, and how do we position ourselves to access them?”

That distinction matters.

When we focus exclusively on grants, we may overlook opportunities that are better aligned with our organizational goals, capabilities, and long-term sustainability.

The goal should not be to chase every available dollar. It should be to build a funding strategy that makes sense for the organization.

2. Knowing Where the Money Is Doesn’t Mean You’re Ready to Receive It

This was another message that resonated strongly with participants.

Finding a funding opportunity is one thing. Being prepared to pursue, secure, manage, and account for that funding is something entirely different.

An organization may have an extraordinary mission and a compelling story. But can it demonstrate results? Does it have reliable financial information? Is its board engaged? Does it have the operational capacity to deliver what it promises?

These are not simply administrative questions.

They are questions about organizational readiness.

Too often, nonprofit leaders begin preparing for funding opportunities only after they discover them.

By then, the clock is already ticking.

Financial statements need updating. Program outcomes need documenting. Partnerships need formalizing. Budgets need developing.

And suddenly, the organization is scrambling to demonstrate that it is prepared for an opportunity it has been hoping to receive.

Funding readiness cannot begin when the application opens.

It must become part of how we operate every day.

That means investing in the systems, governance, financial management, data, and organizational infrastructure that make us credible partners and responsible stewards of resources.

It also means being honest about where our organizations are today and what needs to improve before we pursue larger opportunities.

Because securing money that an organization isn’t prepared to manage can create as many problems as it solves.

3. Relationships Are Part of Your Funding Strategy

Perhaps one of the most important conversations centered on relationships.

I know firsthand how easy it is for a nonprofit executive to become consumed by daily operations.

There are staff issues to resolve, programs to oversee, budgets to manage, reports to review, and emergencies that demand immediate attention.

Before you know it, another week has passed, and you’ve spent nearly all your time working inside the organization rather than building the relationships that can move it forward.

But here’s something I learned during my years as an executive director:

Your calendar tells the truth about your priorities.

If building relationships is essential to your organization’s growth, where does that work appear on your calendar?

How much time are you spending meeting with potential partners, cultivating funders, engaging elected officials, connecting with business leaders, or simply making sure the right people understand the work your organization is doing?

Relationships aren’t an extracurricular activity for nonprofit executives.

They are a core leadership responsibility.

And they shouldn’t begin when you need something.

The strongest partnerships are often built long before a funding opportunity emerges. They grow through trust, shared interests, consistent communication, and a demonstrated ability to deliver results.

This is why I encouraged participants to ask themselves another important question:

Who needs to know you—and what are you doing to make sure they do?

Because sometimes the difference between an organization that consistently accesses resources and one that struggles isn’t the quality of its mission.

It’s the strength of its relationships, its visibility, and its readiness to act when opportunities emerge.

The Conversation Doesn’t End Here

What encouraged me most about the workshop wasn’t simply that nearly 40 people showed up.

It was that the conversation connected with challenges nonprofit leaders are navigating every day.

We weren’t discussing funding as an abstract concept. We were discussing the practical realities of leading organizations that are expected to do more, serve more people, and demonstrate greater impact, often with limited resources.

And we were challenging ourselves to think beyond the next grant application.

Because sustainable organizations aren’t built on funding opportunities alone.

They’re built on sound strategy, organizational readiness, strong relationships, and leaders who make time to position their organizations for what’s next.

At CEO 360, we believe nonprofit leaders should spend less time reacting to funding opportunities and more time preparing to pursue the right ones.

That’s why we’re continuing the conversation through individual follow-up sessions designed to help leaders take a closer look at their organization’s funding strategy, readiness, and opportunities for growth.

If you attended the workshop, thank you for being part of the conversation.

And if you couldn’t join us, I hope you’ll consider these three questions:

• Are we looking beyond grants to identify the full range of resources available to support our mission?

• If a significant funding opportunity emerged tomorrow, would our organization be ready?

• Are we intentionally building the relationships that could open doors for our organization?

Because the question is no longer just Where’s the money?

The bigger question is: When you find it, will your organization be positioned to receive it?

With more than two decades of experience in community development, real estate strategy, and organizational leadership, Joy Johnson brings a seasoned, solutions-focused voice to the field. She is committed to helping communities and institutions avoid systemic pitfalls and build models that truly work. To reach Joy, call (216) 238-2415

WASHINGTON — America needs more housing. But the companies responsible for building it are becoming increasingly reluctant to take the financial risk.

Homebuilder confidence fell to its lowest level since June 2012, according to the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo. Their Housing Market Index dropped three points to 29 in October, far below the reading of 50 that separates generally positive conditions from negative ones.

The decline reflects a troubling contradiction in the housing market. The country faces a persistent shortage of homes, yet the cost of producing and financing new housing is discouraging construction.

For smaller builders, the challenge can be particularly severe.

Unlike major national developers, smaller construction companies often lack the cash reserves, purchasing power and financing flexibility needed to absorb rising costs or prolonged delays.

A project that appears profitable when construction begins can become financially unattractive before the first buyer moves in.

The latest NAHB survey found that 43% of builders reduced home prices in October, the highest share recorded during the 2020–2026 period. Nearly two-thirds offered sales incentives to attract buyers.

Those discounts may help sell existing inventory, but they also reduce the financial margins builders depend on to fund future projects.

Mortgage rates have climbed above 7%, making monthly payments more expensive for prospective homeowners. Meanwhile, builders are confronting higher prices for construction materials, energy, land and financing.

The pressure extends well beyond large development companies.

Independent contractors, electricians, plumbers, roofers and other small businesses depend on a steady pipeline of construction projects. When builders postpone developments, the economic consequences spread through local supply chains.

The Economics of Building Affordable Homes

The affordability crisis is not simply about finding buyers who need housing. It is about producing homes at prices those buyers can afford while allowing builders to recover their costs.

Land acquisition, site preparation, utility connections, permits, labor, materials and financing must all be paid for before a completed home generates revenue.

NAHB estimates that the United States faces a structural shortage of approximately 1.2 million homes.

Yet adding that supply has become increasingly difficult.

In congressional testimony earlier this year, NAHB Chairman Bill Owens reported that construction material costs had increased more than 46% since February 2020. He also cited regulatory costs representing approximately one-quarter of the price of a new single-family home.

Those estimates come from the industry’s trade association, which advocates for reducing regulatory barriers. Local conditions vary, and some building requirements also provide important safety, environmental and consumer protections.

Nevertheless, the underlying financial problem is substantial.

Consider a builder whose total cost to produce a modest home approaches the maximum price local buyers can qualify to finance. Even a small increase in land, labor or borrowing costs can eliminate the project’s expected profit.

The builder may respond by postponing construction, pursuing higher-priced homes or leaving the market entirely.

None of those outcomes increases the supply of affordable starter homes.

A Workforce Problem That Financing Alone Cannot Solve

Construction also faces a shortage of skilled workers.

NAHB estimates that the residential construction industry needs hundreds of thousands of additional workers annually to replace retiring employees, account for departures and meet projected demand.

The shortage affects trades such as framing, electrical work, plumbing and roofing.

Recent immigration enforcement activity has added uncertainty in some construction markets. NAHB reported that more than one-third of builders surveyed in October had experienced enforcement activity in their markets during the previous month, contributing to delays and concerns about labor availability.

The result can be longer construction schedules and higher costs.

That presents an opportunity for workforce-development organizations, community colleges, apprenticeship programs and smaller construction businesses capable of training and employing skilled workers.

But expanding the workforce requires more than short-term training grants. Employers need reliable project pipelines, and workers need opportunities to earn sustainable wages.

Who Gets to Participate in the Housing Economy?

Housing development also raises questions about business ownership and access to opportunity.

Large developers frequently have established relationships with lenders, investors and suppliers. Smaller firms, including minority-owned construction companies, may have fewer financing options and less capacity to carry expenses while waiting for project payments.

These differences can determine who competes successfully for development contracts, acquires property or grows from subcontracting into ownership of larger projects.

Community development organizations face similar challenges when attempting to produce affordable housing.

Tax credits, public subsidies and favorable financing can make projects possible. But those resources cannot independently resolve a shortage of skilled contractors, expensive buildable land or construction budgets that exceed what future rents and sales prices can support.

Public investment may close financing gaps, but the homes still must be built.

The distinction matters for cities attempting to increase affordable housing production.

A successful housing strategy requires more than attracting investors. It must also address zoning, permitting, infrastructure, construction capacity and the ability of local businesses to participate in development.

Otherwise, communities may secure funding for projects that remain too expensive or difficult to complete.

The October confidence report offers little indication that conditions are improving quickly.

The index measuring prospective buyer traffic fell to 18, its lowest level since April 2012, excluding the initial pandemic disruption. Builders’ expectations for sales over the next six months also declined.

The housing shortage remains. What is weakening is the financial incentive and practical capacity to build the homes needed to address it.

For policymakers, lenders and economic-development leaders, that creates a larger question than how to make mortgages more affordable.

America must also determine how to make building homes financially viable—and how to ensure smaller construction businesses, local workers and community institutions can participate in meeting that demand.

WASHINGTON — More than 100 nonprofit organizations that help Americans fight housing discrimination faced the prospect of losing access to a longstanding federal funding program. The Trump administration wanted to redirect much of the money to a handful of recipients.

A federal appeals court has now refused to let most of that restructuring proceed while the legal battle continues.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld a lower court’s order blocking changes to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

The ruling leaves a central question unresolved: How much authority does a federal agency have to change the way congressionally appropriated money is distributed?

For nonprofit organizations dependent on federal grants, the dispute also illustrates how quickly funding arrangements can become uncertain.

What Washington Wanted to Change

Congress established the Fair Housing Initiatives Program in 1987 to support organizations that investigate housing discrimination, educate consumers and help enforce the Fair Housing Act.

Historically, HUD distributed funding through competitive grants to a nationwide network of organizations. Many received multiyear awards supporting investigations, community education and assistance to people who believed they had experienced discrimination.

Under the administration’s proposed restructuring, approximately $46 million of the program’s $56 million fiscal year 2025 appropriation would have been concentrated into five grants.

One proposed award would have directed $25 million to a law school. Another $10 million would have been available to a state or local agency.

The new approach would have eliminated funding for certain longstanding private enforcement activities and sharply reduced opportunities for organizations that traditionally participated in the program.

HUD defended the changes as an effort to modernize fair-housing enforcement, broaden participation and improve the stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Organizations challenging the restructuring argued that the changes would undermine the local network responsible for investigating discrimination complaints.

The National Fair Housing Alliance and Massachusetts Fair Housing Center sued, contending that HUD had improperly altered the program without adequate justification.

The Court Draws a Line

In August, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun concluded that HUD had failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned explanation for its changes.

The judge found that the restructuring threatened significant harm to organizations that had long relied on the program and ordered HUD to return to its previous funding framework.

The administration appealed.

Federal attorneys argued that Congress had given HUD discretion to determine how grant funds should be allocated. They maintained that the lower court had improperly interfered with decisions entrusted to the agency.

The appeals court rejected most of the administration’s request to suspend the order while the appeal proceeds.

It did, however, lift one requirement directing HUD to issue replacement fiscal year 2025 funding notices under the previous system. Congress had subsequently extended the availability of those funds through September 2027, changing the urgency underlying that portion of the lower court’s decision.

The ruling does not permanently resolve every legal question in the case. It means the administration cannot proceed with most of the disputed restructuring while its appeal continues.

HUD said it would pursue available legal options to defend its approach.

The Consequences Reach Beyond Housing

For organizations receiving federal grants, the case presents a familiar financial problem.

Government funding can be substantial, but it is not always predictable.

An organization may hire employees, sign leases, establish programs and commit to multiyear services based on an anticipated grant renewal.

When federal administrators change eligibility rules or funding priorities, those commitments do not disappear.

Payroll must still be met. Facilities must remain operational. Clients continue to need services.

The financial consequences can emerge long before a court decides whether the government’s actions were lawful.

That risk is especially significant for smaller nonprofits with limited unrestricted reserves.

A large institution may have several funding sources and sufficient cash to withstand delayed awards. A community organization dependent on one or two government programs may have little flexibility.

The dispute also carries implications for Cleveland and other cities where local fair-housing organizations investigate complaints involving rental discrimination, lending practices and access to housing.

In July, Axios Cleveland reported that the proposed changes threatened funding opportunities for the region’s Fair Housing Center, even though that organization was not a plaintiff in the latest lawsuit.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition has likewise warned that the restructuring could weaken the infrastructure supporting fair-housing enforcement.

These concerns are not proof that every proposed administrative change is improper. Federal agencies have legitimate responsibilities to evaluate performance, prevent waste and determine whether grant programs are producing results.

But substantial changes to established programs can create consequences beyond the federal budget.

A Warning for Nonprofit Leadership

The case highlights a challenge that nonprofit executives and boards cannot resolve through litigation alone.

Winning a grant does not necessarily establish long-term financial security.

Organizations that depend heavily on government funding remain exposed to changes in federal priorities, administrative interpretations, appropriations and court decisions.

Financial reserves, diversified revenue and reliable financial reporting can help institutions withstand interruptions without immediately reducing services.

Compliance systems are equally important. Organizations must understand the conditions attached to their awards, maintain documentation and respond quickly when funding requirements change.

None of those measures guarantees protection from federal policy shifts. Nor can every nonprofit easily replace government support with private donations.

But they can reduce the risk that a single administrative decision threatens an institution’s continued operation.

The appeals court has temporarily limited HUD’s ability to carry out its proposed restructuring.

It has not eliminated the uncertainty surrounding future federal funding decisions.

For nonprofit leaders, the larger lesson extends beyond fair housing: Public money can support an organization’s mission for decades, but continued access to that money should never be mistaken for financial independence.

When Eliza Simmons Bryant helped establish a home for aging Black Clevelanders in 1896, she was responding to a fundamental problem: African Americans were frequently excluded from facilities that cared for elderly residents.

Her solution became one of Cleveland’s most enduring institutions.

Now celebrating its 130th anniversary, Eliza Bryant Village has operated across three centuries, surviving segregation, economic downturns, neighborhood transformation and dramatic changes in the senior care industry.

Today, the organization identifies as the oldest continually operating African American-founded senior living community in the United States.

But its next chapter may prove as consequential as its history.

A Changing Institution, Not a Closed One

The 2022 closure of Eliza Bryant Village’s skilled nursing facility created uncertainty about the organization’s future. Some interpreted the decision as the closing of the entire institution.

In fact, Eliza Bryant Village continued operating, maintaining senior housing and community services on its 17-acre campus in Cleveland’s Hough neighborhood.

The distinction is important as the organization works to redefine its operating model and position itself for long-term sustainability.

Leadership Focused on Financial Stability

Under President and CEO Bridgette T. Rodgers, Eliza Bryant Village is pursuing a strategy centered on fiscal responsibility, operational efficiency and carefully evaluated partnerships.

The approach reflects a broader reality facing nonprofit senior care providers: preserving a historic mission requires an operating structure capable of supporting it.

The organization’s Board of Directors is also emphasizing oversight of major financial and redevelopment decisions, with particular attention to protecting institutional assets, organizational identity and services for existing residents.

Rather than pursuing expansion for its own sake, the focus is on establishing a sustainable foundation for future growth.

A 17-Acre Asset With Strategic Potential

Eliza Bryant Village’s campus represents a significant institutional asset in Cleveland.

As leadership evaluates potential redevelopment opportunities and new partnerships, the property could play an important role in shaping the organization’s future.

The challenge will be balancing economic opportunity with the preservation of an institution built through generations of community investment.

That balance carries particular significance for an organization whose history is closely connected to the development of Black Cleveland.

Looking Beyond the Anniversary

For Eliza Bryant Village, its 130th anniversary represents more than an opportunity to commemorate the past.

It marks a period of institutional reassessment, with leadership working to strengthen the organization’s financial position, evaluate its physical assets and determine how best to serve future generations.

Founded before the automobile became commonplace and decades before Medicare or Social Security existed, Eliza Bryant Village has repeatedly adapted to changing circumstances.

Its current transition represents another chapter in that history.

The skilled nursing facility closed in 2022. The institution itself did not.

As Cleveland considers the future of its historic community assets, Eliza Bryant Village enters its next chapter with something few organizations possess: 130 years of institutional history, an established community presence and an opportunity to determine what comes next.

Anthropic's plan to dedicate 5% of its shares to public benefit could eventually create a multibillion-dollar resource for nonprofits and workers affected by artificial intelligence. But the company has yet to explain who will control the money or how recipients will be selected.

WASHINGTON — As artificial intelligence companies generate extraordinary wealth, a new question is emerging: How much of that wealth should benefit the public, and who should decide how it is distributed?

Anthropic, the company behind the Claude AI assistant, announced Sunday that it plans to dedicate 5% of its shares to a new Public Benefit Fund that could eventually support nonprofit organizations, workers affected by automation and other public-interest initiatives.

The commitment, which requires shareholder approval, represents a potentially significant development in corporate philanthropy. Rather than promising a fixed annual donation, Anthropic is proposing to set aside an ownership stake whose value could increase as the company grows.

The financial implications could be substantial.

At a hypothetical company valuation of $100 billion, a 5% stake would be worth $5 billion. At $500 billion, it would represent $25 billion. Those figures are illustrations, not disclosed fund valuations or cash available for distribution.

Anthropic has not assigned a dollar value to the commitment, and its actual financial benefit will depend on future valuations, liquidity and the terms governing the fund.

The company also said its board could contribute an additional 2% of shares whenever Anthropic’s valuation increases 50% above a designated baseline. Those additional contributions would be discretionary.

The arrangement could make the fund increasingly valuable if Anthropic continues expanding, but it also ties the potential resources to the company’s financial performance.

Unlike a conventional charitable foundation, the Anthropic Public Benefit Fund will be organized as a wholly owned limited liability company.

Anthropic says that structure will provide flexibility to support different types of public-benefit activities, including large donations to established nonprofits or direct financial distributions to selected populations.

The company has ruled out using the fund’s shares for political contributions or lobbying.

However, significant questions remain unanswered.

Anthropic has not disclosed who will govern the fund, how funding decisions will be made, what qualifications nonprofits must meet or whether communities affected by AI-related job displacement will have a voice in allocating resources.

The company says additional details about governance and financial milestones will be released in the coming months.

Those decisions could determine whether the initiative becomes a meaningful source of public investment or remains primarily controlled by the same corporate leadership responsible for creating the wealth.

The announcement comes as economists continue examining artificial intelligence’s potential effects on employment.

The International Monetary Fund has warned that AI could significantly reshape labor markets, with some occupations benefiting from productivity improvements while others face displacement or declining demand for particular skills.

A June 2026 review by the International Labour Organization found that productivity gains from generative AI are emerging but remain uneven. Researchers reported limited evidence of large-scale job displacement so far, while identifying concerns about entry-level employment, inequality and changes in working conditions.

Those findings suggest that the economic effects of AI are still developing. They also help explain why financial support for worker retraining, employment transitions and community economic development could become increasingly important.

Anthropic has already committed $200 million to studying and addressing AI’s labor-market effects.

Its new fund could eventually support efforts beyond research, although the company has not announced a grant program or a schedule for distributing money.

For nonprofit organizations, that distinction matters.

A multibillion-dollar equity commitment does not automatically translate into accessible grants for workforce development agencies, community colleges, neighborhood organizations or institutions helping displaced workers.

Access will depend on whether the fund establishes open application procedures, publishes eligibility standards and supports organizations outside established technology and philanthropic networks.

Smaller nonprofits could face the same obstacles they encounter with conventional institutional philanthropy: limited administrative capacity, complicated applications and difficulty securing relationships with major funders.

The potential public benefit will also depend on what the fund measures.

Supporting a workforce training program is different from demonstrating that participants obtained jobs, increased earnings or successfully transitioned into new industries.

Likewise, directing resources toward communities affected by technological change does not necessarily establish that the investment improved their economic conditions.

Transparent reporting on recipients, spending and measurable outcomes would allow the public to evaluate whether the initiative delivers on its stated purpose.

Anthropic’s announcement also reflects a broader shift in how technology companies are approaching their responsibilities.

The company was established as a public benefit corporation, a legal structure intended to balance financial interests with broader public objectives.

Anthropic says its founders previously pledged to donate 80% of their personal equity holdings, while approximately half its employees participate in an equity donation matching program.

Including the new commitment, the company estimates that roughly 20% of its shares are dedicated to public-benefit purposes through various arrangements.

Those commitments are not all assets controlled by the newly announced fund, and they should not be treated as a single pool of money available to nonprofits.

The distinction is important as AI companies grow large enough to influence not only employment and technology markets but potentially the future of philanthropy itself.

Corporate-controlled funds can mobilize resources quickly and support innovative projects that conventional government programs may overlook.

They can also concentrate considerable influence over public priorities in organizations that are not directly accountable to voters or the communities they intend to serve.

Anthropic’s proposal creates an opportunity to examine that balance before substantial distributions begin.

For workers, nonprofits and community institutions, the central issue is not simply how much wealth artificial intelligence creates.

It is whether the people and organizations affected by technological change will have meaningful access to the resources intended to help them adapt.

Anthropic has proposed setting aside a potentially valuable share of its future growth.

The next test is whether the company creates a transparent, accountable system for turning that ownership stake into measurable public benefit.

WASHINGTON — Most American small-business owners say they are comfortable with their cash flow. Yet only a small fraction believe now is a good time to expand.

The contrast is one of the clearest signals emerging from recent surveys of the nation’s small businesses.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s third-quarter Small Business Index, 72% of owners reported being comfortable with their cash flow, while 71% described their businesses as financially healthy.

But only 38% planned to increase investment during the next year, down from 47% a year earlier.

A separate September survey from the National Federation of Independent Business found that just 7% of owners believed it was a good time to expand, a five-percentage-point decline from August.

The findings suggest that keeping a business financially stable and having the confidence to grow it are increasingly different challenges.

The NFIB’s Small Business Optimism Index fell to 97.9 in September, slightly below its 52-year average. Its uncertainty measure climbed to 90, substantially above the historical average of 68.

Meanwhile, the Chamber reported that 54% of owners considered inflation their biggest challenge, even as many expressed satisfaction with their current financial condition.

The hesitation is not necessarily evidence that businesses are struggling to survive. For some owners, maintaining healthy cash reserves may be preferable to taking on new debt or increasing payroll during an uncertain economic period.

Expanding requires more than sufficient revenue to cover existing expenses. Businesses often must purchase equipment, hire workers, increase inventory or secure larger facilities months before those investments generate additional income.

That creates financial exposure even for otherwise profitable companies.

The Chamber’s survey found that 62% of owners expected revenue to increase during the next year, while only 36% planned to add employees.

The difference suggests that some businesses anticipate growth without committing to significant increases in staffing or physical capacity.

Borrowing conditions are another consideration.

The Federal Reserve’s bank lending surveys have shown that commercial credit remains available, but financing terms depend heavily on borrower risk, collateral and financial strength. Banks reported tightening business lending standards during the first quarter of 2026, followed by largely unchanged standards in the second quarter.

For established companies with substantial reserves and longstanding banking relationships, those conditions may be manageable.

Businesses with limited collateral, inconsistent cash flow or fewer financing relationships can face a different experience.

That distinction becomes particularly important when examining differences in capital access.

Data from the Federal Reserve Banks’ Small Business Credit Survey show that 57% of white-owned employer firms seeking financing in 2025 received the full amount requested, compared with 32% of Black-owned employer firms.

The survey is not a random national sample, and those figures alone do not establish why individual applications received different outcomes. They do, however, document a substantial difference in reported financing experiences.

For businesses attempting to purchase commercial property, expand operations or pursue larger contracts, access to adequate financing can determine whether an opportunity moves forward.

A company with strong sales but insufficient working capital may be unable to accept a major contract requiring substantial upfront expenditures.

Another business with comparable revenue but stronger reserves and financing relationships may be positioned to pursue that same opportunity.

Community institutions encounter related problems.

Nonprofit organizations can maintain balanced operating budgets while lacking the unrestricted cash needed to acquire property, expand programs or cover expenses before government reimbursements arrive.

A larger contract or grant may increase an organization’s revenue while simultaneously requiring additional employees, equipment and operating expenditures.

Without sufficient working capital, growth can create financial pressure rather than immediate financial strength.

The surveys also reveal that owners are making different decisions based on their circumstances.

The Chamber found that younger business owners were considerably more optimistic about future investment than older owners. Manufacturing and professional-services firms were also more likely than retail businesses to anticipate increased hiring and investment.

Those differences caution against treating small businesses as a single economic category.

Some owners may be postponing expansion because demand is uncertain. Others may be protecting profits against higher labor and operating expenses. Still others may have viable opportunities but lack financing on acceptable terms.

The distinction matters for economic-development programs and lenders attempting to encourage business growth.

Improving access to capital may help companies facing financing barriers, but it will not necessarily persuade owners who believe expansion would expose them to excessive risk.

Likewise, stronger sales alone may not resolve weaknesses in financial reporting, cash reserves or debt capacity.

The latest surveys point to an economy in which many small businesses are managing their current operations successfully while remaining cautious about the future.

For owners considering expansion, the decisive financial question may not be how much revenue the business generates today.

It is whether the company has the cash, credit, financial structure and operating capacity to support tomorrow’s growth.

That difference could determine which businesses take advantage of the next economic opportunity—and which remain on the sidelines.

Rising fuel costs can squeeze transportation companies, contractors, healthcare providers and nonprofits even when their revenue is growing. The financial consequences extend well beyond the price displayed at gas stations.

WASHINGTON — For millions of Americans, rising gasoline prices mean spending more money to fill their vehicles. For businesses and nonprofit organizations that depend on transportation, the consequences can be considerably more complicated.

Fuel is not simply another monthly expense. It is a cost embedded in the delivery of products, construction services, medical care, food and community programs. When prices increase, businesses must either absorb the additional expense, charge customers more or find ways to operate more efficiently.

For smaller organizations with limited financial reserves, none of those options is necessarily easy.

The financial pressure can be particularly severe when fuel costs increase faster than the revenue businesses generate. A company may report higher sales, serve more customers and expand its operations while experiencing declining profitability.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as business owners navigate volatile energy markets, financing costs and persistent pressure on operating budgets.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, gasoline and diesel prices respond to several factors, including crude oil costs, refining capacity, distribution expenses, taxes and seasonal demand. Diesel prices are especially important to commercial transportation, agriculture, construction and freight distribution.

The agency’s weekly fuel-price reports provide a benchmark for understanding those changes. But the impact on an individual organization depends on its vehicles, routes, fuel consumption and ability to pass costs along to customers.

A transportation company operating 10 vehicles that each consume 50 gallons of fuel weekly would purchase approximately 26,000 gallons annually. A 50-cent increase per gallon would add $13,000 to its annual fuel expenses, assuming consumption remained unchanged.

That expense would not necessarily be accompanied by an increase in revenue.

For businesses operating on narrow margins, even relatively modest changes in operating costs can have significant consequences.

Transportation and delivery companies are among the most directly exposed. Fuel is a recurring expense, and operators may have limited control over the distances their drivers travel.

Large freight companies often negotiate contracts that include fuel surcharges, allowing them to recover some additional costs. Smaller operators may have less bargaining power, particularly when competing for contracts with customers unwilling to accept higher prices.

Independent trucking companies and local delivery services can therefore face a difficult choice between increasing prices and protecting customer relationships.

Construction companies encounter similar pressures, although fuel expenses may be less visible in their financial statements.

Contractors use gasoline and diesel to transport workers, move equipment, operate machinery and deliver building materials. Higher transportation expenses can also be reflected in prices charged by suppliers.

For contractors working under fixed-price agreements, unexpected fuel increases may reduce projected profits unless contracts include provisions allowing adjustments.

The consequences can be especially difficult for smaller construction firms that lack substantial cash reserves or the ability to negotiate favorable purchasing arrangements.

Food distribution represents another area of vulnerability.

Grocers, restaurants, caterers and food-service suppliers depend on transportation networks that move products from farms and warehouses to stores, institutions and consumers.

Higher diesel prices can increase distribution costs, although the extent to which those increases reach consumers depends on competition, contracts and other market conditions.

For businesses selling products with limited profit margins, absorbing additional delivery expenses may be difficult.

The pressure can extend to organizations providing meals to seniors, children and households experiencing food insecurity.

Unlike commercial distributors, nonprofit meal programs may depend on grants, donations and government reimbursements that do not automatically increase when fuel becomes more expensive.

Home healthcare providers face a related challenge.

Their employees frequently travel between patients, sometimes covering substantial distances in a single workday. Organizations may reimburse workers for mileage or operate vehicles directly.

When transportation expenses rise, providers must decide how to manage those costs without reducing service availability or placing additional financial pressure on employees.

For organizations serving rural communities or patients with limited transportation options, reducing travel may not be practical.

The financial impact also reaches nonprofits operating passenger vans, mobile service units and other vehicle fleets.

Community organizations providing senior transportation, youth programming, workforce services and medical outreach may face higher costs without an immediate increase in funding.

A nonprofit operating five vehicles that each consume 40 gallons weekly would purchase approximately 10,400 gallons annually. A 75-cent increase per gallon would add $7,800 in annual fuel costs, assuming usage remained constant.

For an organization with a substantial operating budget, that amount might be manageable. For a smaller institution with little unrestricted funding, it could represent money otherwise available for staffing, equipment or direct services.

The broader economic consequences are not always immediate.

Research on energy-price shocks has found that higher oil and fuel costs can affect inflation, consumer spending and economic activity. The Federal Reserve has also examined how energy prices influence business costs and inflation expectations.

However, not every increase in gasoline prices produces the same economic outcome. The effects depend on how long prices remain elevated, whether businesses can adjust and what is happening elsewhere in the economy.

Some companies may offset higher expenses through improved routing, more efficient vehicles, fuel purchasing arrangements or adjustments to pricing.

Others may have limited flexibility because their contracts, service obligations or operating geography determine how much transportation they require.

The central financial issue is the relationship between revenue and expenses.

Consider a business generating $1 million annually with $950,000 in operating expenses. Its operating surplus would be $50,000 before considering any additional costs not included in that figure.

If expenses increased by $30,000 without a corresponding revenue increase, that surplus would fall to $20,000.

Even if the business increased annual revenue by $20,000, its surplus would still decline to $40,000 if expenses rose by $30,000.

The example illustrates why revenue growth alone does not establish that an organization is becoming financially stronger.

For businesses considering expansion, rising fuel expenses can also affect borrowing decisions.

Lenders generally evaluate cash flow, existing debt obligations and the ability to repay additional financing. An organization whose operating costs are increasing faster than income may have less capacity to support new debt, even if its customer base is expanding.

That does not mean higher fuel prices automatically prevent companies from obtaining financing. It means operating-cost assumptions can influence whether proposed investments remain financially sustainable.

Organizations with reliable financial reporting can identify those pressures earlier, evaluate their options and determine whether planned expansion remains feasible.

Those without timely information may discover declining profitability only after financial reserves have already been reduced.

Higher fuel prices are therefore more than a transportation issue. They can become a test of pricing power, contract management, operating efficiency and financial preparedness.

For small businesses and community institutions, the challenge is not simply determining how much more they will spend at the pump.

It is determining whether their revenue, reserves and financing arrangements can withstand higher operating costs without undermining the services and economic activity they were established to provide.