Georgia has opened new housing funding opportunities, while programs in Ohio and Washington offer additional avenues for investment. But securing public dollars requires more than identifying a need. Organizations must demonstrate that they can manage the money, deliver results and satisfy increasingly demanding requirements.
ATLANTA — Millions of dollars in public funding are being made available to address housing shortages, homelessness and community development. Yet for nonprofit organizations, community development corporations and smaller housing providers, the availability of money does not necessarily mean they are positioned to receive it.
Georgia offers a timely example.
On October 2, the Georgia Department of Community Affairs announced the third round of Georgia Rehoused, a funding initiative designed to help communities reduce unsheltered homelessness. The announcement identified more than $45 million across several funding categories, including permanent housing, transitional housing, shelter operations and services for veterans.
The pre-application period opened October 5 and continues through November 25. Competitive applications are scheduled to close December 16, with award decisions anticipated in January 2027.
The announcement represents a substantial opportunity for communities struggling with homelessness. But a closer examination of the application requirements reveals another issue: Organizations must be prepared to do considerably more than demonstrate that people in their communities need housing.
They must prove they can deliver it.
Georgia Rehoused requires applicants to document partnerships, demonstrate local government participation, establish the impact of unsheltered homelessness, prepare project plans and budgets, and demonstrate readiness to use the Homeless Management Information System.
Federal funding carries additional requirements, including environmental reviews, procurement standards, financial monitoring and evidence that applicants can manage federal resources.
Those requirements serve legitimate purposes. Public agencies must protect taxpayer dollars and ensure that funded projects can be completed. But they also create a practical challenge for organizations that may have strong community relationships and valuable programs without the administrative infrastructure required to compete for substantial government awards.
Under Georgia’s process, applicants can be advised to strengthen their proposals before proceeding to a competitive application. That means organizational readiness is not simply a desirable characteristic. It is part of the screening process.
The distinction matters.
An organization may understand the housing problems facing its neighborhood better than an outside developer. It may have operated in that community for decades. Its leadership may have earned the trust of residents, churches, businesses and elected officials.
None of those advantages automatically establishes that the organization can produce the financial documentation, development plans, compliance systems and partnerships necessary to receive a major public award.
That is where community need and institutional capacity can become two very different things.
Georgia has also offered other housing financing opportunities this year. In January, the state announced approximately $16 million in HOME financing for affordable rental developments, with individual loans ranging from $1 million to $4 million.
But that opportunity was not a general grant program for any nonprofit interested in housing. Applicants were required to pursue federal housing tax credits and meet the program’s development and financing requirements. The application period closed in March.
The lesson is that a funding announcement must be examined carefully. A large dollar figure may attract attention, but eligibility, project structure, financing requirements and application deadlines determine who can actually compete.
Ohio’s funding system raises similar questions.
The Ohio Housing Finance Agency administers housing development assistance through several programs supported by federal and state resources. These include financing for developments using housing tax credits and smaller multifamily projects that do not use those credits.
Its 2026 experience and capacity standards establish minimum qualifications for developers. Organizations without qualifying development experience may need to partner with more experienced developers before pursuing certain funding opportunities.
Ohio’s rules also provide a capacity-building pathway for newer organizations, recognizing that development experience can be gained through structured partnerships.
That distinction is important for smaller community development organizations in cities such as Cleveland, Canton and Columbus.
A neighborhood organization may identify vacant properties, understand local housing demand and maintain relationships with residents. But transforming those assets into a fundable development may require site control, construction estimates, financing commitments, experienced development partners and a realistic operating plan.
Without those components, an otherwise promising project may never become a competitive application.
Ohio’s Homeless Crisis Response Program provides another example. Applications are evaluated on factors that include outcomes, collaboration, organizational capacity, performance and the quality of homelessness management data. The program also relies on regional coordination and limits eligibility to specified applicants, including organizations already funded through the program.
These are not simply administrative details. They influence which organizations can participate, how projects are designed and what evidence applicants must provide.
The federal government applies similar scrutiny.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires applicants for its financial assistance programs to satisfy applicable registration, eligibility and compliance requirements. Depending on the program, federal officials may examine an organization’s performance history, financial management, integrity and ability to administer an award.
Organizations with inadequate systems may face additional conditions or be found unqualified for particular awards.
For organizations accustomed to relying on annual fundraising campaigns, private donations or smaller local grants, the transition to managing multimillion-dollar government awards can require substantial changes in financial controls, staffing, documentation and reporting.
And winning the award is only the beginning. Recipients must continue meeting the requirements attached to the money.
But organizational capacity is not the entire explanation for why funding fails to reach some communities.
Public resources are limited, and competition can be intense even among well-qualified applicants.
An analysis published by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute found that requests for Emergency Solutions Grants funding in fiscal year 2024 exceeded $14.1 million, while approximately $4.7 million was awarded.
That gap cannot be explained simply by whether applicants were prepared. There was substantially more demand than available funding.
Other obstacles can include geographic restrictions, matching funds, reimbursement arrangements, development costs, eligibility rules and the availability of experienced partners.
Nor does the existence of a funding opportunity establish that Black-led organizations or organizations serving predominantly Black communities are being systematically excluded.
Determining that would require examining applicant and award data, including the characteristics of organizations that applied, those that received funding, those that were rejected and the reasons for those decisions.
The available program documents establish that organizational capacity matters. They do not, by themselves, establish how many potentially eligible organizations have missed funding because they lacked it.
That question deserves further investigation, including interviews with applicants and funding administrators.
Still, the requirements raise an important policy issue: If governments want organizations with deep community relationships to participate in housing development, how much assistance should be available to help those organizations become qualified applicants?
Georgia’s pre-application process offers one approach by identifying deficiencies before organizations proceed to full competition. Ohio’s capacity-building provisions offer another by creating opportunities for newer developers to work alongside experienced ones.
Neither eliminates the underlying costs of preparing an organization to manage substantial public funding.
For community organizations, the implications extend well beyond housing.
The same questions arise when pursuing economic development financing, infrastructure grants, workforce investments and other government-backed opportunities.
Does the organization have reliable financial statements? Can it document measurable results? Does it have the staffing, partnerships and systems to administer the proposed project? Can its leadership explain how the investment will produce outcomes that funders can independently verify?
Those questions are often answered long before an application is submitted.
Public funding announcements understandably generate excitement, particularly in communities where the need for investment is unmistakable. But identifying an opportunity and being positioned to secure it are two separate achievements.
For public officials and philanthropic institutions, the challenge is not merely making funding available. It is also determining whether capable community organizations have a reasonable pathway to compete.
For nonprofit leaders and community development organizations, the challenge is to build the institutional capacity that makes those opportunities attainable.
The money may be available.
The more consequential question is whether the organizations closest to the problems have the resources, relationships and institutional strength to compete for it.