A host of Guilford County nonprofit organizations that thought they were well on their way to receiving county money this year are instead going to have to go back and do much of the work all over again.
On Thursday, Sept. 3, the Guilford County Board of Commissioners will hold a work session to review a revised process for awarding Community-Based Organization grants for the 2026-2027 fiscal year.
The work session will be held at 3:30 p.m. in the Carolyn Coleman Conference Room on the first floor of the Old Guilford County Courthouse at 301 W. Market St. in Greensboro.
The revision became necessary after a last-minute change in state law approved by the Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly took effect July 1.
The new restrictions mean that Guilford County can no longer consider race or gender in the same way it previously did when awarding CBO funding.
That means organizations that already went through the county’s application process earlier this year will have to revise and resubmit their applications under a new set of rules. For some of these groups, it’s more than just an inconvenience.
The county’s CBO program includes a number of relatively small nonprofit organizations that don’t have large reserves or deep-pocketed donors. Some had been counting on county allocations to fund programs and services this year and had already gone through the application process months ago.
Now, they have to do it again.
Chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners Skip Alston said county officials don’t have much choice.
“We can’t consider race, we can’t consider gender,” Alston said. “It’s basically race and gender, so we have to send it back out, another CBO policy, so that people can submit based on that policy and not reference race or gender.”
The change comes from action in Raleigh as Republican state lawmakers have moved to eliminate government policies that give preference or special consideration that’s based on race or gender.
Those efforts have also been encouraged nationally by the Trump administration’s aggressive push against diversity, equity and inclusion policies in government and institutions receiving public money.
The timing was particularly bad for Guilford County.
The county had already gone through its normal application process for its fiscal year 2026-2027 Community-Based Organization grants. Nonprofit groups spent months filling out applications, providing financial information and describing the programs and services they planned to provide with the county funding if they were lucky enough to get it.
Then Raleigh changed the rules.
Alston said the county can’t simply grandfather in applications filed before the new requirements took effect.
Asked whether the county could just use the applications submitted under the old rules, Alston said, “No, they won’t.”
He said county staff has been notifying applicants that another round of applications will be required.
“They’ve already notified all the applicants applying for the CBO grants and let them know that we have sent out new policies to them,” Alston said.
The commissioners are scheduled Thursday to “review and consider the County’s revised Community-Based Organization funding process for FY 2027,” according to the official notice of the work session.
The Board of Commissioners could also take action on the revised process at the meeting.
Alston said he expects county staff to move quickly once the revised rules are in place, but the process will still take time.
He estimated that applicants could have roughly two weeks to 30 days to submit revised materials, followed by perhaps another month for county officials to review them.
“We probably won’t award until sometime in October,” Alston said.
That’s considerably later than many organizations expected when they applied earlier in the year.
The list of organizations ultimately receiving county money could also look different.
Alston said some nonprofits whose programs specifically target people of a certain race or gender may not be eligible under the new rules unless those organizations change how their programs or applications are structured.
“Some organizations won’t be able to apply if they’re specifically targeting race or going to a specific gender,” he said.
Alston said organizations could potentially revise their programs to meet the new requirements.
“They could change their policies and then submit according to our policy guidelines,” he said.
For example, a nonprofit could offer a program designed to help children, but couldn’t make participation dependent on the children being members of one particular race.
There are circumstances in which sex may be inherent to the service being offered.
Alston gave the example of a nonprofit that provides services to women giving birth.
“If they’re doing a program where they help women give birth, that would probably be acceptable,” he said, adding that men don’t get pregnant.
The CBO program has been controversial for years for reasons that have nothing to do with the new state rules.
There are Guilford County taxpayers who don’t believe county commissioners should be handing taxpayer money to private nonprofit organizations in the first place.
The system also puts commissioners in the position of choosing winners and losers among many, many groups asking for county money.
Some of the organizations are large and well known. Others are tiny operations that many county residents have probably never heard of.
And over the years there have been cases in which commissioners have strongly supported particular nonprofits, had longstanding relationships with them or even served on boards connected to organizations seeking county funding.
That has periodically led to questions about whether the grants are based entirely on need and merit or, in some cases, on which organizations have the strongest champions on the Board of Commissioners.
Still, whatever anyone thinks of the county’s nonprofit funding program, the organizations applying for money this year followed the process Guilford County established.
Many spent considerable time preparing applications and financial information, and some had been planning their programs around the expectation of receiving county money.
Now they’re being told the rules changed in the middle of the game.
Alston, a Democrat, said the situation is frustrating, but praised County Manager Victor Isler, county attorneys and other staff members for responding quickly to the change.
“It is aggravating,” Alston said. “But we have very good staff, an excellent county manager, excellent department heads, an excellent attorney that’s basically telling us what we can do and what we can’t do.”
Alston said county officials aren’t looking for creative ways around the new requirements.
“If we can’t do it, we just can’t do it,” he said. “There’s no sense in trying to figure out a way to go around it when it’s explicit and that you just can’t use race.”
He added, “The law is the law.”
“People in power, they make the law, then you’ve got to respect the law,” he said. “Or you can take them to court and try to sue.”
Alston added that Guilford County isn’t currently planning a legal challenge – though he said there’s been discussion among outside organizations about possible litigation over the new restrictions.
For Guilford County, however, the job now will be on Thursday afternoon: getting a new CBO funding process in place so nonprofit organizations can apply yet again and, eventually, get the county money some of them expected to have months
“We can’t consider race,” (like we have in the past) “we can’t consider gender,” (like we have in the past) Alston said. “It’s basically race and gender, so we have to send it back out, another CBO policy, so that people can submit based on that policy and not reference race or gender.”
The teat is dry, The gravy train has been derailed. The not very concealed tax-payer money give away of Skip the Omnipotent and the Cit…I mean County Commissars is facing REAL sunshine.
There is going to be people (Chris) that will argue ‘well this is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the budget’. Does the old saying death by a thousand cuts mean anything? Not to mention asking why should I support the lifestyle of the moochers that run these organizations when I get nothing from them. Let them fund their own vacations (I’m sorry, I mean ‘business trips’) and lifestyles There are plenty of NPOs I’d rather support, not be told I WILL support them.
“We can’t consider race, we can’t consider gender,” Alston said. Commissar Skips own words.
Now let’s start looking all the make jobs spending for the friends and relatives.
I support the idea of local government supporting some non-profits if those organizations provide support to the community and reduce the burden on local governments. Food Banks for example, kids after school programs, etc… The criticism of GC’s approach is the absolute lack of transparency in these programs, who has vested interest in them, etc…. I think it is time to reduce the push on race for these programs and focus on poverty regardless of race or gender.
The lack of transparency allows conspiracy theorist to ignore the good work many of these non-profits make unsubstantiated claims of fraud and cronyism.
THAT is what I think. But you be you
Skip-the-Hyp is creative, especially with OPM.
Even through they can’t say they are looking at Race and Gender, they still will behind the scenes. It’s a waste of time. The government should not be using my tax money to pay out to charities. Charities need to sustain themselves through VOLUNTARY contributions. So dumb.
“Voluntary contributions” are appropriate for purely charitable activities, but if a non-profit is providing a public service—helping the homeless, feeding people in need, providing services to children, etc…. there’s nothing inherently wrong with government contracting with that organization to deliver the service. In fact, government/nonprofit partnerships can be more efficient than building another government bureaucracy to provide the same service.
The question shouldn’t be “Is it a charity?” It should be “Is this a legitimate public purpose, is the organization effective, and are taxpayers getting a good return for their money?” Granted, this has never been something that the GC commissions have ever really proven for those organizations they support, but it doesn’t make it wrong on its face to for local governments to support certain non-profits.
“But it’s for the kids”….that’s always the thing the libs toss into the air and hope people bite. It’s not for the kids. It’s for the people running the programs to make money off of the government. Look that homeless charities….if they truly helped the homeless, we would not see the same homeless on the streets every day, year after year. It’s a system that simply feeds itself to stay afloat without actually providing the true help it purports to, and they know that the government will keep on keeping on giving them money. That is why these types of services need to be handled solely in the private sector. The money train will dry up really quick when donors realize that their money is not being used wisely.
First, helping homelessness isn’t about ending homelessness as that is an entirely different issue and scale of effort. No easy answers either. Helping homelessness is about providing temporary shelter, job search support, aid for accessing aid, etc….
I never said kids. I said poverty. It is real trap for people, and many charities help these people with both immediate needs such as food and healthcare as well as long-term needs such as job training, childcare support, etc… I don’t speak for any of the charities funded by your taxes specifically as the lack of transparency is certainly an issue.
I don’t disagree that charities that fail to show actual positive impact to the community should not receive funding….but making a blanket comment that all these charities are failing to actually have an impact for personal greed is highly disingenuous. Any actual support / evidence for this accusation?
I will always question how conservatives who claim to be the party of Christians can so easily discount those in poverty…. especially the working poor, the elderly, the disabled and yes…..the kids. But you be you.
Cheers
One of the homeless charities is literally called: “Partners Ending Homelessness”.
You didn’t say “kids”, you said, “providing services to children”. Same difference.
I don’t discount poverty. I donate my time and money at church to feed the homeless VOLUNTARILY, not because the government makes me. That’s the difference between the lib and the conservative. You are for forcing people to contribute even without effective oversight. My oversight is that if my church starts keeping the food themselves, I stop giving it.
I will always question how you can be such a moron. Just because I don’t want the government to handle my charitable work, does not mean that I am discounting the issue. Quite the opposite. I care enough to take a personal interest in the solution myself. Again, VOLUNTARILY.
So dumb.
…right and you made fun of liberals for being concerned about children. What are you ranting about?
I am for the efficiency of programs that support a broad part of the community and if some taxes can help with that….great. It benefits the entire community, not just the people being fed. So, yes, I support taxes being used to efficiently support feeding people struggling with food access. Good for your church for being part of the solution.
You don’t personally go out and hand out food on your own. Why? Because it is more efficient to group together to offer those types of services. Does your church feed people every day in all parts of the community? Nope, hence even more efficient to support community wide food banks and services. Not that support for those local to the church or even in the church isn’t a good idea. It just that it is not an end all be all solution by itself.
Hope that helps. But you be you.
FYI, the group calling themselves “Partners Ending Homelessness” can call themselves what they want but their services only kick in for people who are already homeless. So sure, they end homelessness for the individual, but they aren’t ending the stream of people finding themselves without reliable shelter.
Hope that helps.
The charities on the government door are not ending individual homelessness or positively impacting the issue in any way. The same people are in the streets today downtown that were there years ago. It’s a failed system that puts on a good show, feeds some homeless folks, and keeps the cycle going so they can stay in business. It’s a mental health issue more than a feed the guy down on his luck issue, but nobody wants to say that or address it. Just keep the cycle going.
Efficiency and Government are two words that never go together.
What data do you use to support that statement? Homeless data is tracked very closely in GC on a regular basis. I used those numbers in my comment that they work to help people find shelter both temporary and long term but little to stop the flow of people entering into homelessness. For example:
The 2024 Greensboro/High Point CoC data reported: 2,274 people entering homelessness during the year and 2,305 exiting homelessness.
This suggests that if these programs stopped, you would see a spike in the number of homeless on the street. The numbers are not all good either….. for example:
From 2024 to 2025 the average duration of homelessness increased from 114 days to 136 days.
From 2024 to 2025 the percentage of those that return to homelessness within 24 months increased from 3.6% to 5.11%.
What data did you use if any?
Since you mentioned chronic homelessness….the Point in Time figure for number of homeless is ~650 with an estimated 19% of those being long-term or chronic homeless. There are a number of reasons they are in that status and can share insights if interested.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
Your numbers are showing an increase in homelessness, not a decrease. Besides, none of those numbers attribute anything…anything…to the service providers. You are making a big leap there to try to say that they are somehow stemming the tide. There is no qualitative or quantitative measure to what service providers actually do to end homelessness on an individual or mass scale. That is again by design so they can stay in business on the government dime without oversight.
Again, at the local level. I do not need a study to know that Isaac Myers, Jyhad, Dwight Smith, etc. etc. are all still wandering around downtown just like they always have been. Literally the same people in the same places year after year. They have been there so long that I know their dang names. Referrals haven’t helped them. Service providers haven’t helped them. Your system has not helped them. But keep on using my tax money to not help them. So dumb.
Yes. An increase in people ENTERING homelessness. Hence my statement that current progress only helps people experiencing homelessness versus working to block homelessness from happening in the first place.
I don’t think it is a big leap to say if these programs were canceled that fewer people would get off the streets and into housing. If you remove these programs it will take longer for people to get off the street and therefore more people will be on the street. Not complicated math.
The folks you mention are the minority of the people facing homelessness. I noted that in my prior comment. Does that mean the programs are failing? Nope.
So you’re wanting data and then taking guesses that your theory is the right one without data? Got it.
My point is that there is no definitive data on any organization that gets government money to show how much they help the homeless or prevent homelessness or what have you. No oversight. No data. None.
Don’t waste my tax money if you can’t prove you’re actually helping solve the problem. Preferably, let charities be handled privately, not looking down the barrel of the government gun.
I shared data. Not sure what metric or number you want to see to understand that if these programs where cut, that it would worsen the problem. Any ideas? I can see if i can find them…..seems common sense to me and hard to speciifcally link but happy to give it a try.
For now the numers work using the following logic in my point of view:
“Every person placed in Rapid Re-Housing or Permanent Supportive Housing represents one less person living on the street, in a park, or in an emergency room. If a program houses 300 people a year while 400 new people lose their housing due to soaring rent, the program didn’t fail, it prevented the street population from doubling.”
Hope that helps but happy to continuing discussing if you have something else you need to link the value of these programs.
That’s right, the people of the city and county can make their own decisions about charity, even how to spend the money they EARN. It begins at home, not downtown. All these giveaways with OPM is just to buy votes.
The plain and simple truth!
It about time the money train for these organizations came to a stop!!!
At the voting booth. Bon Chance.
. . . & some of the wealthy ‘outside’ mendicants are considering litigation !
Skippy will use his “Smoke & Mirrors” to give to those he supports.
So, waste of everyone’s time.
Skip Alston is the most racist politician ever in Guilford County. All he ever talks about is black this and black that. Pure racism.
If you believe Skip actually holds racist views, then point to the specific statement, policy, or behavior that demonstrates prejudice or discrimination based on race. “He supports civil rights too strongly” isn’t evidence of racism; it’s evidence that he has a different view on that racial equality requires. (I disagree with him on a number of topics in this area by the way)
Disagreement over how to achieve equality is legitimate. Calling someone racist because they prioritize equality is not an argument….it’s just a label.
Cheers
If anybody believes anything out of skip away with your money Alston’s mouth, they are delusional. Of course he’s going to only submit the ones that have to do with race and gender. He knows which nonprofits are which because he’s on the board of a lot of them. So when he resubmits, he might take off race and he might take up gender but he’s still going to only submit his pet projects. The thing is, we need to stop funding nonprofits. Let them get out and do charity drives and whatever else they have to do. It is not the taxpayers place to fund these organizations when the majority of us don’t even use them and don’t even know what they’re for. There are several that I have asked people to explain to me and nobody can. It is a scam. A lot of these non-profits are a scam. They are pocketing the money. You know it and I know it. Look at all the fraud they have found in Minnesota and California because of nonprofits. With Skippy at the helm, Guilford County is no different. He knows exactly what he is doing. Don’t be fooled by this. He knows who is who and he knows how to do things. His pet projects will continue to get all the money. We need to just stop funding non-profits with our tax money altogether.
Absolutely !!!
“If they’re doing a program where they help women give birth, that would probably be acceptable,” he said, adding that men don’t get pregnant. Oh really? That may come as a surprise to some of the activists in Skip’s political party!
Poor Skip, now unable to make partisan grants he whines like a child. VOLUNTEER funds are what real nonprofits survive on, not annual contributions from the county taxpayers.
Taxpayers should not be forced to support NGOs! Period!
We should not be using taxpayers money to support any NGO. No matter the race or gender or what ever. If I can’t vote on who the money goes to then we should not give any of our tax dollars to the charity. Also if we have been giving money to NGOs just because of race then are these organizations just racist organizations?? The mere admission of this by Skip seems to point out that these organizations bylaws and objectives have been built on racism. Just saying.
One way or another our Guilford County Board of Commissioners will find a way to fund these non-profits? This Board and their Leader are fiscally irresponsible, our County has huge debt, and I have no sympathy for all the Guilford County Citizens that repeatedly don’t vote for their election and re-election. Maybe these irresponsible voters will think about voting next time as they pay their recent Guilford County Property Tax Bills!
“A host of Guilford County nonprofit organizations that thought they were well on their way to receiving county money this year are instead going to have to go back and do much of the work all over again.”
It isn’t “county” money. It’s TAXPAYER money, every dollar of it!
LMAO!!! Skip said can’t consider race or gender? That’s ALL Skip considers! The Guilford County way of wasting your tax dollars.
It seems like it might be better to remove all NGOs from the budget. Provide a checklist with the property tax bill. Each taxpayer could check off the name/names of NGOs they support, add an amount, and include that payment along with the tax bill payment. The county could then distribute the money as it was collected….
That is a lot of administration for what amounts to an average of $11.38 per household given to NGOs per year.
Just how did you arrive at that number Ole Mighty Oz.
Math. 2.5 millon spent on NGOs / number of households in Guilford county (~228k).
(I used actual numbers in the math but dont recall then off the top of my my but this is close)
Hope that helps
Professor if I want to donate MY money to a nonprofit, I want it to be my choice as to who it goes to and not have 9 people to make that choice for me. I’ll bet a lot of county residents feel the same way.
Good for you but that’s not how taxes work. All goverment programs make decisions without your personal input into how they budget, funded, who they help, how they help, etc….
Welcome to Demcracy.
Donlt like the whay things are run, get out and work to get them voted out of office.
The NGO’s in this county are nothing but skips vote buying. Plain and simple. Please learn how to spell and use proper punctuation
Any evidence of that … nope. Just the classic “I thunk it so it mus be troo” approach to accusations.