Wolf&Grayson EditorialThe phrase “custom-built financial solution” gets thrown around as if bespoke were automatically better. Joseph B. Diehl, a certified public accountant (CPA) and attorney who advises tribal housing organizations and other mission-driven entities, thinks that instinct is usually wrong, and expensively so. His argument is subtler than the marketing pitch and more useful: the problem is not that the software does not exist. The problem is that leaders let the platform dictate the strategy instead of the other way around, then paper over the mismatch with workarounds nobody planned for and everyone resents. For organizations operating in rural areas, under federal funding rules, with thin finance teams and shifting political ground beneath them, that mismatch is not an inconvenience. It is the reason good plans stall.
Start With Intent, Not Software
Diehl’s diagnostic runs in three steps, and the order matters. He begins at the strategic level, and not with the written plan. “Sometimes what they’ve written down as to what they want to do is not the same as what they really intend to do,” he says. That gap between the documented plan and the real ambition is where most implementations go wrong, because the system gets built to serve the document. Second comes an honest capability assessment: staffing, existing financial systems, and whether the organization is required to have an independent audit, which changes the scope of the work considerably. Third, he looks at the industry and what the organization is trying to achieve within its market, a framing he applies even to nonprofits that are not competing in the conventional sense.
Only then does the tooling question arise, and Diehl’s answer surprises clients who came to him expecting to commission something from scratch. “I am not a big fan of custom-built financial solutions, but rather I think there are existing financial solutions out there that can be modified and tweaked, so to speak, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel,” he says. Most licensable platforms are flexible and somewhat generic, which is precisely what makes them adaptable. The discipline he insists on is directional: “You shouldn’t design what you want to do around the software or the platform that you’re trying to use, but rather stick with what your strategic plan is. And then if you need to do workarounds, so be it.” Workarounds are acceptable as a consequence of strategy. They are corrosive as a substitute for it.
The Rural Talent Math Nobody Solves
The capability assessment tends to surface a constraint that no financial system can fix. Standard frameworks assume a finance function competent enough to run them, and in rural areas that assumption breaks on economics. Cost of living is lower, but so are salaries, and the arithmetic of relocation is brutal. Someone considering a move from an urban market may be looking at a pay cut of 40, 50, even 60 percent. “We as human beings sort of get used to the standard of living that we’re used to,” Diehl says, which is why the pitch he makes on behalf of rural employers leans on health benefits, fresh air, and a more easygoing setting. He is candid that this only goes so far. Rural organizations cannot outbid urban competitors, particularly when he hears of new master’s graduates starting at $190,000 a year, roughly 19 times what he started at.
The cost of that gap is not primarily financial. It is falling behind on the mission. “What they want to do is not achievable with the financial platforms or frameworks that they are trying to use to achieve those goals,” Diehl says, and the compounding effect is human: “It’s not a hopeless problem, but it’s one that creates a lot of tension and anxiety for those that are actually trying to help; for example, help people in rural areas with housing or with jobs.” Executives reading budget variances rarely see this line item. A staffing constraint gets recoded as a software failure, a new platform gets licensed, and the underlying capacity problem persists at higher cost.
Building on Ground That Moves
Policy volatility is the other force that makes tribal- and mission-driven finance structurally harder than the textbooks allow. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) of 1996 gave tribes the authority to depart from what the federal government had previously dictated, which mattered enormously given the diversity involved. There are now 575 tribes and tribal organizations in the United States, Diehl notes, each with its own culture, sometimes its own language, and sometimes different ways of raising families. Cookie-cutter housing never made sense against that variation. Yet the funding source retains discretion, and priorities shift. Diehl describes decisions to limit what is provided to particular groups, with funding to indigent, homeless, or disabled populations cut, held back, or delayed. “It makes it really hard to build financial structures when there are policy shifts,” he says, and the volatility runs in both directions. Tribal councils turn over too, bringing different views and priorities, which he calls another variable that is very hard to predict.
The response Diehl sees working is ownership of the revenue stream: economic development, funded internally, removes the dependency. “If we build it with our own money, we don’t rely on anyone else, then we’ll be more likely to be successful and get a revenue stream going,” he says, pointing to gaming as the established example and data centers as the live one. Tribes hold substantial vacant land and have argued it should host them; the current administration wants domestic data center capacity to compete with China, England, and other European countries building out AI. The constraint is physical, since these facilities need energy and cooling, with water one route to keeping big box buildings full of electronics from overheating. That debate is unresolved. What it illustrates is the underlying financial logic: capital structures built on discretionary funding are always provisional, and durable ones start with revenue an organization controls.
Follow Joseph B. Diehl on LinkedIn for more insights on financial strategy for tribal housing organizations and mission-driven entities.
