Someone does a certain kind of work that never makes the evening news. There was no cutting of the ribbon, no viral video, and no politician standing in front of a banner. At 7 p.m., a caseworker is on the phone with a family to help them figure out whether they need to pay the rent or the electricity bill this month. These are the times that Missouri’s nonprofit sector lives in, and these are the people that the state’s Nonprofit Relief and Recovery Grant program was made to help.
The Missouri Department of Economic Development ran the program, which used federal CARES Act funds to give $22 million to 501(c)(3) groups across the state that were directly affected by the COVID-19 public health emergency. The words look like rules on paper. It looks more like a lifeline in real life.
The grants were given to groups that work in areas that don’t get a lot of attention from the news, like preventing homelessness, food insecurity, helping at-risk youth, job training, childcare, and extracurricular academic support outside of school hours. These are the programs that fill in the blanks between what the government can do and what families need on a Tuesday afternoon when something goes wrong.
The way Missouri set this up is interesting because of the way they carefully layered priorities. The applications were accepted in two waves. First, organizations that help people who are most at risk of homelessness, unemployment, hunger, or child welfare were given the chance to receive funding. It’s a small choice in design that means a lot more. Some emergency funds don’t even try to figure out who needs the money the most.
The most each group could ask for was $250,000, but the department could give more if money was still available. However, what the money could be used for is more telling than the ceiling. Rental space to help people get away from each other. Getting PPE. Case management was moved to online platforms when it wasn’t possible to do it in person. Holding on to staff during closures. These aren’t just empty line items. They make the difference between an organization that stays open during a crisis and one that shuts down quietly, leaving people in the area with nowhere else to turn. Take a moment to think about that. People don’t go hungry when a food pantry closes.
The requirements for eligibility were strict, but not too much to ask. Before March 1, 2020, organizations had to have been around for at least a year, which is enough time to show that they knew what they were doing. They had to show a direct link between the pandemic and the stress on their operations and show that their organization had the skills to handle grant money responsibly. Applications were graded on the services they offered, the history of the organization, and how long they could last. Not just want, but also ready. The practicality of that approach makes me think that the people who made this program had seen what happens when emergency funds are given to groups that aren’t ready to use them well.
Faith-based groups were allowed to apply, and there were enough checks and balances to make sure that the funded work stayed community service and not religious instruction. In low-income neighborhoods, some of the most reliable social services are provided in church basements and parish halls. This kind of accommodation is often overlooked in political discussions, but it is very important on the ground.
More than anything else, this program shows that Missouri’s nonprofits are an important part of recovery—they are recovery. Formal institutions can make rules and remove checks. As part of their grant-funded work, these groups wait with people, make calls on their behalf, and make sure that kids are fed, housed, and enrolled. That work keeps going, one grant at a time.
It’s still not clear how many organizations have fully rebuilt their skills since the pandemic ended. Anyone who works in this field will tell you that recovery doesn’t happen in a straight line. But the way Missouri set up the system—the scoring, the prioritization, and the focus on sustainability—shows that they at least know that just throwing money at a problem won’t solve it. The point was to give money to groups that could keep going after the check cleared.
