Wenatchee School District outlines how “braiding” state and federal grants sustains services amid funding uncertainty

Tim Shepherd, the Wenatchee School District’s director of state and federal programs, told the school board the district uses a “braiding” approach to combine separate federal and state grants so they work together to support interventions, professional learning and language services.

“Braiding funds…empowers districts to maximize funding impact,” Shepherd said, describing braiding as a way to use multiple funding sources for a single initiative while keeping each source’s statutory identity and reporting requirements.

Why it matters: where one funding stream ends or is cut, services — and the staff who deliver them — can be at risk. Shepherd warned that some federal allocations remain uncertain and highlighted recent competitive‑grant outcomes that have already reduced local capacity.

Shepherd outlined the main federal sources the district manages: Title I (Part A and C for migrant students), Title II‑A for professional learning, Title III‑A for language instruction for English learners, Title IV for student supports and academic enrichment, competitive McKinney‑Vento funding for homeless services, and IDEA Part B for special education. Many of those programs are filed in a consolidated grant that links components together during application and reporting.

Shepherd cited specific dollar impacts discussed in the presentation: the district’s allocation and carryforward figures for one federal program were presented as about $1,100,000 in current allocation and $1,300,000 in carryforward; he also said the district received $67,000 from a competitive McKinney‑Vento award last year and received $0 from that same competitive pool this year, creating a shortfall for homeless services.

To help cover the gap, Shepherd said he used Title I set‑aside authority to move $100,000 into homeless supports for this year, but he cautioned that continuing to use Title I in that way would exhaust funds needed for Title I’s core purposes if repeated.

Shepherd explained differences in carryover rules: “In Title I, you normally get to carry over 15 percent; all these other ones are 100 percent carry forward,” meaning some federal funds can be banked year‑to‑year while others cannot. He added that official carryforward notifications can lag into January or February, complicating budget planning.

Board members pressed on contingency planning for staff who are mainly funded by federal grants. Shepherd and district leadership said they had held some positions open this year and reallocated levy and Basic Education Allocation (BEA) dollars to preserve services where possible while waiting for clearer federal guidance. One board member noted the district had completed planning exercises over the summer and refreshed spreadsheets to model worst‑case scenarios.

The district also emphasized reporting and compliance burdens linked to federal funds: federal grants require time‑and‑effort documentation and tighter evidence of use than some state allocations, which constrains flexibility.

What’s next: the district reported it had received its apportionment funding for the school year, which staff said offered short‑term relief, and leaders said they would continue contingency planning, watch carryforward notices closely, and prioritize funds that sustain core student supports.

The board did not take formal action during the workshop; Shepherd’s presentation was informational and framed as planning guidance for continued budget and staffing decisions.