Domain: Government
Question:
A Community Action Agency in rural East Texas completed its Community Needs Assessment in early 2025, identifying employment services, affordable housing, and emergency financial assistance as the top three needs. The agency's board approved a five-year strategic plan (2025-2030) in June 2025 with goals addressing these priorities.

In September 2025, the agency received TDHCA monitoring findings noting that while the strategic plan includes strong family-level goals (employment and housing assistance), it lacks adequate community-level goals to meet Organizational Standards (O.S.) 6.3's requirement for "family, agency, and community goals" and O.S. 6.2's requirement to address "revitalization of low-income communities" (TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide, 2025). The monitor recommends addressing this in the next planning cycle.

However, the Executive Director is concerned that waiting until 2030 to add community goals means the agency will not be fully compliant for five years. The board is resistant to reopening the strategic plan just three months after adoption, arguing it would appear disorganized. Several board members suggest that since the plan includes community-level activities (like partnering with local employers), it already addresses community needs even if not explicitly framed as community goals.

Given that O.S. 6.5 requires annual strategic plan updates and the Strategic Plan Update Form allows for adjustments (TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide, 2025), how should the Executive Director address the monitoring finding in a way that closes the compliance gap quickly without portraying the agency as "revising" its five-year plan--while also managing board concerns about stability and the appearance of poor planning?

In your response, do all of the following while staying within the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide's framework:

Explain how the Executive Director can treat the solution as a required annual update (not a plan rewrite) under O.S. 6.5 while still preserving the board-approved five-year structure under O.S. 6.1.
Propose explicit community-level goals (not just activities) that clearly satisfy O.S. 6.2 and O.S. 6.3, and ensure they "translate" existing board-approved partnerships into measurable community outcomes -- for example, goals framed around increasing affordable housing units through local government/developer coordination.
Include how the Executive Director should communicate the difference between "strategies/activities" (e.g., partnering with employers) and "outcome-focused community goals" (e.g., reducing unemployment among low-income residents in the service area), so that the board's argument ("we already do community work") is addressed without conceding the compliance point.
Outline a board-facing messaging strategy that frames the update as proactive compliance management and an opportunity to strengthen the plan's community-level structure--rather than an admission of poor planning--explicitly addressing "optics."

Provide an operational timeline that demonstrates responsiveness but avoids appearing reactive, including drafting community-goal language by the end of 2025, vetting through a board committee in January 2026, and adopting through the first annual update in spring 2026, with continued updates annually until the 2030 planning cycle.
Incorporate how leveraging local advocates and discussing ROI can be positioned to strengthen community outcomes.

The goal is a compliance-corrective path that uses the annual update mechanism to add explicit community-level goals, clarifies activities vs. goals, and reassures the board that the agency is strengthening, not destabilizing, its strategic plan.

Expected points in a correct answer:
States flexibility within the five-year planning structure.
References Step 5 of the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide as the framework for developing outcome-focused community goals.
States the annual update requirement under O.S. 6.5
Identifies the annual update process under O.S. 6.5 as the appropriate mechanism to address the compliance gap and make improvements to the strategic plan
States a course of action to update the plan via an annual update.
States how the Executive Director can invoke the annual update mechanism under the ROMA framework referenced in Step 6 to add community-level goals without reopening the five-year plan.
States O.S. 6.2 requires poverty as a source for objective.
States O.S. 6.2 requires revitalization of low-income communities as a source for objective.
States O.S. 6.2 requires empowerment of people with low income to become more self-sufficient as a source for objective.
States O.S. 6.3 requires the strategic plan to address objectives related to family.
States O.S. 6.3 requires the strategic plan to include agency-level goals
States O.S. 6.3 requires the strategic plan to include community-level goals
States that Organizational Standards must be met in order for the Strategic Plan to be approved, as referenced in Step 6 of the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide.
States that the Strategic Plan must meet all Organizational Standard requirements in order to be considered compliant.
States that the Strategic Plan will be evaluated using the annual Organizational Standard Field Assessment Guide.
States that documentation supporting Strategic Plan compliance requirements must be uploaded as part of the TDHCA approval process.
States that community-level goal language should be drafted by the end of 2025.
States that the drafted goal language should be presented to the board's strategic planning committee in January 2026.
Includes the first annual update presented to the full board in spring 2026 to demonstrate responsiveness without appearing reactive.
States updates can continue to take place until a full revision is done for the 2030 strategic plan.
States O.S. 6.3 requires goals for three levels: family, agency and community goals.
Recommends full revision for 2030 strategic plan.
Recommends developing 2 to 3 community-level goals to address the compliance gap
States that community-level goals should focus on systemic outcomes (such as housing availability, employment rates, or community partnerships) rather than agency activities
States that investing in preventative community strategies generates a return, citing a $4 return for every $1 invested, to support the board's case for adding community-level goals.
Provides an example of a systemic community outcome goal related to employment, such as reducing the unemployment rate among low-income residents in the service area.
Provides an example of a community-level goal focused on increasing affordable housing units through coordination with local government and developers, as a means of satisfying O.S. 6.2.
Differentiates between systemic outcomes and agency activities by stating they are not the same.
The ROMA framework differentiates between activities and goals as each having their own part of the planning process.
Defines an outcome as a general statement of results expected, without numerical targets attached.
States that one type of documentation required for O.S. 6.4 is evidence that customer satisfaction and input is gathered as part of the community needs assessment.
States that the documentation for O.S. 6.4 must include satisfaction survey results along with the method used to gather that information.
States second type of documentation required for O.S. 6.4: Illustration of how customer satisfaction and input is included in the strategic planning process
States operational timelines are referenced for goals throughout the ROMA framework, especially in Step 5 and Step 6.
Frames the addition of community goals as "responsive compliance management" or "proactive compliance" rather than fixing a mistake or poor planning.
States that the approved plan remains the guiding document while the annual update strengthens its community-level structure.
Explains that CSBG's statutory purposes include community revitalization, not just individual services, as the reason O.S. 6.3 requires three levels of goals.
States that family goals measure individual outcomes while community goals measure systemic change.
States that adding community goals does not negate existing partnerships but rather measures their collective impact.
Recommends leveraging existing board-approved partnerships by reframing them as community-level outcomes rather than just agency activities.
States that partnering with local advocates can help the agency serve more people and leverage local ties.
Provides an example of a community-level goal related to establishing an employer association (e.g., 20 businesses committed to hiring CSBG participants).
States that the Strategic Plan Update Form is designed to accommodate adjustments beyond simple target changes.
States that waiting to address community concerns will exacerbate social, economic, and political problems.
Uses the specific example that "partnering with employers" is a strategy/activity while "reducing unemployment rate among low-income residents" is a community goal/outcome, to illustrate the distinction.