Issue link: https://blog.providence.org/i/1367428
The findings of this assessment offer an opportunity to reflect on the region's disaster response – specifically with regard to the alignment and efficacy of philanthropic, community based and local government resources and efforts. The first section of the report reviews disaster response best practice by sector (philanthropy, CBO, and local government) as a foundation for the findings, and is followed by research findings and analysis on each sector. Each section explores successes and challenges and/or fund deployment and fundraising (as relevant), evaluation, equity, partnerships and collaboration, planning and next steps. Taking these broad learnings into account, the primary finding of the report is that the region would benefit from investment in a disaster response eco-system, one that aligns networks and strategies and delineates planning and coordination by the three phases of disaster response. The following tables present findings from the three main stakeholder groups identified in the assessment: the philanthropic community, community-based nonprofit providers, and county government. Resilience Key Facts At least $140 million raised for wildfire response, with a majority coming as new money from outside of Sonoma and Napa counties. Funds raised had more flexibility than government dollars, and were distributed in a decentralized manner by dozens of organizations. Response Achievements Response Challenges Philanthropic Response Recovery Relief The Three Phases of Disaster Relief Large amount of money raised and distributed to those affected by fires Private funding could support groups and needs not addressed by government aid Participation of many funders allowed access to broad spectrum of donors, including non-traditional ones Hundreds of organizations and many thousands of people helped (Napa-specific) Activation of MOUs with CBOs post-disaster Grants were weighted towards immediate relief efforts but also covered medium term recovery and long term resilience efforts Rapidly changing circumstances and the decentralized funder base made alignment and coordination difficult, leading to some duplication of efforts or unmet needs Crisis environment helped prevent systematic evaluation or data collection efforts Differing strategies, values, and philosophies caused tension between some funders Findings 2