“Show Me The Money” Establishing a Community-Based - Organizational Incubator to Strengthen Grassroots CVI Efforts

Shakitha Leavy, “Show Me The Money” Establishing a Community-Based Organizational Incubator to Strengthen Grassroots CVI Efforts

Student Name: Shakitha Leavy

Project Title: “Show Me The Money” Establishing a Community-Based Organizational Incubator to Strengthen Grassroots CVI Efforts

Advisor: Kheperah kearse

Recap of the Issue (1 paragraph)

What is the issue, why does it matter, and who is most directly impacted and how?

Grassroots Community Violence Intervention (CVI) organizations in Washington, D.C., particularly in historically disinvested areas like Anacostia and Ward 8, play a frontline role in preventing gun violence and promoting public safety. Despite their proximity to harm and credibility within community networks, many of these organizations are structurally under-resourced and chronically underfunded. While funding opportunities do exist across federal, local, and philanthropic ecosystems, a persistent and often invisible barrier stands in the way: organizational readiness. This includes compliance infrastructure, governance systems, grant management capabilities, and technical reporting tools that are often prerequisites for receiving and sustaining funding. Without these, even the most impactful grassroots organizations are often excluded from competitive grants or forced to return funding due to compliance challenges. As AmeriCorps notes, traditional grantmaking often rewards innovation at the program level without investing in the organizational capacity needed to sustain that work long-term. A 2023 National Council of Nonprofits workforce survey reveals that 50.2% of nonprofits identify stress and burnout as a major consequence of challenges with government grants and contracts – including compliance burdens and funding instability. This readiness gap is not a failure of leadership, but a failure of systems design. As early as the Obama administration’s Social Innovation Fund (SIF), policymakers acknowledged this issue by directing funds through experienced intermediaries rather than directly to community groups. This implicitly signals that while grassroots leadership is essential, it is not being institutionally supported to succeed at scale. Without intentional investment in capacity-building and technical assistance, grassroots CVI organizations will continue to be locked out of long-term funding opportunities, undermining both their sustainability and the safety of the communities they serve.

Relevant Information & Causes (Use data and insights)

What is driving the issue? What are the direct and indirect causes? What underlying or systemic cases exists?

Even when funding opportunities exist, grassroots CVI organizations in Washington, D.C., especially those in Wards 7 and 8, struggle to access and sustain them due to systemic gaps in organizational readiness. These organizations are often led by trusted community members with lived experience and cultural credibility, yet they face formidable barriers in navigating the backend demands of modern grantmaking. Without robust systems for grant writing, budgeting, compliance, and data reporting, they struggle to meet the rigorous administrative demands set by government agencies and philanthropic funders. This barrier persists even when funding is technically available and their community impact is undeniable.

In April 2025, the Department of Justice revoked 69 CVI grant awards totaling over $158 million nationwide, interrupting services in multiple cities including D.C. (Moreno, 2025). While political volatility plays a role, structural issues such as fragmented governance, unclear oversight mechanisms, lack of multi-year funding, and limited technical assistance compound the risk. Recent mismanagement scandals like the embezzlement case involving Women in H.E.E.L.S. Inc. have only heightened scrutiny and eroded public trust, especially for smaller organizations that lack the administrative safeguards common in larger institutions. These scandals, however, are not anomalies – they are symptoms of an ecosystem that has failed to build the administrative muscle of grassroots actors while expecting them to perform at the level of highly resourced institutions.

This pattern is not new. The Obama Administration’s Social Innovation Fund (SIF) similarly acknowledged these capacity disparities by channeling federal funds through larger intermediary organizations rather than directly supporting grassroots groups. While the goal was effective scaling, this strategy also implicitly reflected a deeper truth: the system has long presumed that community-rooted organizations lack the infrastructure to manage complex awards without external support (The White House, n.d.). Moreover, as highlighted by the AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation, “nonprofit organizations face substantial challenges in developing organizational capacity… Traditional technical assistance often fails to reflect the lived realities of CVI leaders, leaving them without culturally relevant support structures” (Zhang, Bell, & Loring, 2020). This disconnect limits the effectiveness of training and exacerbates the readiness gap.

At the root of this issue is a misalignment between funder priorities and the operational realities of community-rooted organizations. Grassroots groups often struggle to translate their lived experience and relational impact into the language of performance metrics and grant deliverables. This mismatch creates an uneven playing field, where larger, professionalized nonprofits more easily secure funding, while those closest to the work remain locked out. As a result, organizations spend excessive time navigating compliance paperwork and diverting energy from frontline interventions.

Ultimately, systemic racism and disinvestment in Black communities further entrench these barriers. Wards 7 and 8, home to many CVI organizations, have significantly lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, and fewer economic opportunities than neighboring wards. These structural inequities not only increase the demand for CVI services, but also force these organizations to operate as de facto public health responders, workforce developers, housing navigators, and crisis intervention teams – roles that extend far beyond their original scope. As a result, leadership and staff are often stretched thin, prioritizing urgent community needs over backend administrative functions. In this context, there is simply not enough bandwidth to also build the complex systems needed for grant compliance, financial reporting, and evaluation, leaving many grassroots groups unable to meet funder expectations despite their frontline impact. The result is not just inefficiency, it’s a systemic injustice that penalizes organizations for proximity to harm rather than equipping them to heal it.

Past, Current, and Planned Strategies

What has been done to address the issue? Who is leading those efforts (stakeholders, organizations)? Where are the gaps? What’s missing?

Washington, D.C.’s CVI ecosystem is anchored by two major city-led programs: the Cure the Streets initiative under the Office of the Attorney General and the Violence Intervention Program administered by the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE). Both deploy credible messengers and outreach workers to mediate conflict, prevent retaliation, and connect high-risk individuals to services including job training, mentoring, and behavioral health support.

Since 2022, the ONSE program has received multi-year federal funding through the Community-Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI), administered by the U.S. Department of Justice. In FY 2022 and 2023, over $200 million was awarded nationally through CVIPI, including funds to D.C. organizations. The Empowering Communities Through Innovative Violence Intervention (ECIVI) award under ONSE specifically targets individuals aged 18–35 with conflict mediation, life coaching, and support services (Gathright & Flynn, 2025). Additionally, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act allocated $50 million for CVI programming in FY 2024, a portion of which supported D.C.-based efforts.

Advocacy organizations such as GIFFORDS, and legal coalitions including the Vera Institute, have played key roles in defending CVI funding nationally. In 2025, when the DOJ unexpectedly revoked 69 CVI awards worth over $158 million, including grants to D.C. organizations, Vera and partners filed a federal lawsuit ( Vera Institute et al. v. DOJ) to challenge the rollback (Moreno, 2025).

Local stakeholders have proposed structural reforms in response to program fragmentation. For example, the D.C. Council has recommended consolidating Cure the Streets and ONSE into a unified CVI framework to reduce redundancy, increase transparency, and improve coordination (Flowers, 2025). This recommendation included the creation of an oversight advisory board comprising community leaders, funders, practitioners, and researchers to improve accountability and data-driven decision-making.

Despite these efforts, several persistent gaps remain:

· Governance and Coordination Gaps: Cure the Streets and ONSE operate under different agencies, leading to duplication of services, inconsistent evaluation metrics, and inefficiencies in resource deployment.

· Funding Fragility: Many CVI organizations rely on year-to-year or pilot-based funding without long-term guarantees. The 2025 DOJ cuts demonstrate how political shifts can disrupt entire service ecosystems and force layoffs or program closures with little notice.

· Capacity Disparities: While some larger nonprofits are equipped to manage complex federal grants, smaller community-based organizations often lack the administrative infrastructure to apply for or sustain them. Technical assistance programs are available but often lack the cultural specificity or long-term mentorship needed for grassroots organizations to benefit.

· Public Trust and Scandal Fallout: Mismanagement incidents, such as the embezzlement case involving Women in H.E.E.L.S. Inc., a local CVI grantee, have led to increased funder scrutiny and reputational damage for the broader CVI community, even among organizations uninvolved in misconduct.

· Data Limitations: While ONSE has piloted crime trend monitoring in some target communities, there is limited availability of longitudinal data, independent evaluations, or standardized performance indicators to track CVI outcomes across organizations and initiatives.

Planned strategies now focus on expanding organizational support and exploring alternative funding mechanisms. For example, programs like Philadelphia’s Healing Hurt People, which utilize Medicaid billing to sustain post-violence interventions, are often cited as potential models for D.C. However, Medicaid reimbursement requires organizations to front costs, posing a cash flow barrier for under-resourced groups. Additionally, because both hospitals and CVI organizations may bill Medicaid for overlapping services, there is a risk of double-billing, which can trigger legal complications or result in limitations on what services are reimbursable or reduced reimbursement rates. These constraints highlight the need for careful policy design and fiscal infrastructure before Medicaid can be considered a viable pathway for grassroots CVI sustainability.

Additionally, efforts are underway to explore public-private partnerships, dedicated city-level appropriations, and philanthropic capital pools that can offer more predictable, multi-year funding for grassroots CVI organizations.

Finally, my capstone initiative proposes the development of a Community-Based Organization (CBO) Incubator – a structure designed to fill readiness gaps by providing tailored technical assistance, compliance coaching, evaluation tools, and culturally responsive leadership development. This incubator model seeks to prepare grassroots CVI organizations to compete for, manage, and sustain funding within a complex and evolving public safety landscape.

Opportunities for Intervention (2-3 paragraphs)

What are the key opportunities or leverage points for new interventions and how might these opportunities strengthen current approaches or fill existing gaps?

There is a critical opportunity to strengthen Washington, D.C.’s CVI ecosystem by investing in organizational capacity-building and infrastructure development for grassroots organizations. The current system places disproportionate administrative and compliance burdens on small, community-based CVI groups, yet provides minimal support to meet those demands. A city-supported or philanthropy-backed Community-Based Organization (CBO) Incubator could provide tailored technical assistance, fiscal management support, compliance coaching, and culturally responsive training in grant writing, data collection, and reporting. Such a model would help prepare frontline organizations to access multi-year funding streams, mitigate risk of mismanagement, and sustain their operations long-term. By embedding peer mentorship, infrastructure audits, and shared services (e.g., evaluation or bookkeeping), an incubator approach could close the readiness gap while maintaining the grassroots integrity of these groups.

A second leverage point is the development of dedicated, stable funding streams at the local level that are insulated from federal political volatility. This could include multi-year city appropriations, public-private partnerships, or pooled philanthropic funds administered through an equity lens. Flexible funding mechanisms would allow organizations to retain staff, deepen impact, and respond to community needs without the disruptions caused by short-term or delayed federal disbursements. Any new funding mechanisms should also incorporate equity-focused grantmaking practices, including simplified applications, technical assistance built into the award process, and pre-award capacity screening to set grantees up for success rather than failure.

Finally, while Medicaid reimbursement offers a potential model for funding trauma-informed CVI services, especially in hospital-linked programs like Philadelphia’s Healing Hurt People, this pathway must be approached with caution. Reimbursement requires CVI organizations to front costs, which can be prohibitive for small teams with limited reserves. It also introduces risk around duplicate billing, particularly when hospitals and CVI organizations both provide related services, which can lead to compliance violations or disallowed claims. To adapt this model responsibly, D.C. would need to explore policy changes, payment reforms, or intermediary fiscal agents that allow CVI groups to participate in Medicaid billing without undue legal or financial risk.

Together, these interventions offer a path to stabilize the CVI field in D.C., not by replacing grassroots leadership, but by investing in the back-end systems, sustainable financing, and technical scaffolding that allow frontline expertise to thrive. Building this infrastructure now would ensure that CVI remains a viable, trusted, and data-informed pillar of public safety for years to come.

References (citations)

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation

Zhang, S., Bell, S., & Loring, B. (2020). Capacity-building interventions and performance outcomes in nonprofit organizations: A meta-analysis. AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation.