The Grant That Comes With Strings
A regional foundation offers your nonprofit community health center a $600,000, three-year grant to expand behavioral health services. The grant covers 70% of the program cost in year one, 50% in year two, and 0% in year three. The foundation requires that the center serve a specified zip code with the highest uninsured rate in the county, report quarterly on a set of metrics the center does not currently collect, and begin services within 60 days. The center's behavioral health program currently runs at a $180,000 annual deficit and depends on two grant-funded clinicians whose funding ends in 14 months. The board chair is enthusiastic; the CFO is alarmed.
1. Evaluate whether to accept the grant, and identify the decisive financial and ethical issues.
Read the worked answer
The decisive issue is the year-three cliff, not the year-one money.
Financial analysis:
- Model total program cost and the unfunded remainder each year. If the grant is $600k over three years, the annual award is roughly $200k. If that is 70% of year-one cost, year-one program cost is ~$286k (center share ~$86k). Year two at 50% means the center share rises; year three the center absorbs 100%.
- The center already carries a $180k deficit and loses two clinicians in 14 months. Accepting adds a new unfunded obligation on top of an existing one.
Ethical and mission issues:
- Serving the highest-uninsured zip code is mission-aligned and should count in favor, not against.
- But starting a service the center cannot sustain risks abandoning patients mid-treatment - a harm to the very population the grant targets.
Decision framework: accept only with a written sustainability plan (diversified payer mix, billing for covered services, a committed year-three funding source) and a board-approved contingency to wind down responsibly.
2. The board chair wants to sign immediately to capture the 60-day start. What do you recommend, and what conditions do you attach?
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: negotiate, don't sign blind - but move fast.
Conditions to attach:
- Sustainability clause: a documented year-three funding plan before launch, or foundation flexibility on the step-down schedule.
- Metric feasibility: ask for a 90-day ramp on reporting metrics and cost-sharing for the data infrastructure needed to collect them.
- Start-date realism: 60 days is tight for hiring and credentialing; request a phased launch (pilot caseload first).
- Board resolution: require the board to approve the full three-year obligation, not just year one, so the liability is transparent.
Governance point: the board chair's enthusiasm is an asset, but fiduciary duty requires the board to see the total commitment. Present a one-page risk brief at the next meeting.
Judgment tested: distinguishing mission alignment from financial sustainability, and refusing to let urgency override fiduciary duty.