As an example, although the federal government spends almost $450 billion on children (Kids Share 2013, Urban Institute), the money that is available to meet the needs of some of our most vulnerable comes to states, agencies and individuals through more than 160 separate funding streams, each with its own rules, requirements and restrictions. This federal “system” is a patchwork of programs that has evolved over decades spent creating narrow funding and regulatory silos that only target one problem at a time (e.g., housing instability or lack of food).

It seems that we have designed a system so “rich” in programming, that we have created a convoluted, inefficient system, meaning that the funding that is available is compromised and limited by various burdens and obstacles. With that said, I want to be clear that many programs are independently working well, succeeding to meet the needs of a number of kids. This blog is not advocating for ignoring the innumerable successes individuals, organizations and communities have had by working within the current system.

Instead, the critique inherent in this blog stems from the more than 1.6 million children who will be homeless this year (see familyhomelessness.org), the almost 16 million children that experience food insecurity (see feedingamerica.com), and the persistent achievement gap between lower-income students and their more affluent peers (Reardon, 2011). In other words, the critique is of the system as a whole, with its failure to meet the needs of too many children.

As opposed to overhauling the entire system, breaking this down into digestible chunks might mean tackling individual elements that contribute to this structural inefficiency. For example, possible strategies might include working toward the alignment of eligibility criteria across programs, simplifying complex and redundant application processes, streamlining definitions across programs and between agencies, reforming burdensome data reporting and administrative requirements, and better understanding the cost inefficiencies created by the current system.

As I wrote last week, beginning with the establishment of your personal priorities, consider ways to lend your voice to the policy conversations that are occurring in your community, around the state, or even nationally. Perhaps you could talk to your legislators to share your perspectives, educate members of your community that may be unaware of some of the obstacles families and individuals face, or create a comprehensive evaluation plan that will enable you to track your efforts, demonstrate your impact and ultimately, identify gaps and roadblocks as well as best practices.

Policymakers need help with identifying where things are working well, acknowledging what is succeeding, celebrating those successes, and in addition, help with understanding where things are not working as well as they could or should.

Building a more effective system falls on all of us, and while it might not include a dramatic increase in available funding, there may be alternative strategies for addressing policies and practices that detract from accomplishing your goals.

Over the next few weeks, JVA will be sharing some thoughts on what 2015 may have in store for various areas based on the composition of the new Congress, current budget allocations and expert projections, but in the meantime, please email or call if you have any specific questions or policy priorities that you’d like to discuss.

JVA Managing Associate Jill Bennett Iman was a policy analyst and community engagement specialist for U.S. Senator Michael Bennett (no relation). At JVA she coordinates projects with diverse stakeholders, bringing multiple organizations, agencies and individuals to the table to discuss and analyze complicated social issues.