Issue link: https://blog.providence.org/i/1367431
17 Individual Donation................................100% Corporate Funding ................................75% Grant Funding .......................................63% Fundraising Event .................................38% Table 4: What was the general source of newly-raised funding? (n=8) As of May, 50% of the respondents said they had remaining dollars to distribute, pointing to projects that were multi-year or long-term. Approximately $14 million was remaining; as of September, that number had dropped to approximately $13M, with tentative plans in place for long-term recovery and resilience for most of the remaining dollars. In May, forty percent of the respondents said they planned to continue funding "after action" efforts related to disaster recovery. The survey explored how data and information was used, both before and after funding decisions were made. Only 36% of respondents said that it was "not at all difficult" to get accurate and actionable information about wildfire-related needs, indicating that a majority of funders had difficulty. This stemmed from the rapid and constantly changing nature of the situation, other more pressing priorities, and a lack of coordination among organizations. As time went on, more information became available. Funders used the following sources of information most frequently: 62% of funders, including most of the largest foundations, reported raising new funding, from the following sources: Community Partners ..............................86% Previous knowledge of grantees ............71% Regional government ............................50% Other foundation referrals .....................50% News/media ..........................................36% Table 5: What sources of information did you use to make your funding decisions? (n=14) Despite the best practice recommendation on its importance, evaluation of the relief efforts was somewhat sparse, with 3 respondents saying they do not have plans to evaluate their funding. 10 of the 14 responding foundations required grant reports; these were the primary way all funders evaluated their funding. Half of the funders responding to the survey could not provide a count for people their funding directly supported, making it impossible to de- termine how many people were supported through philanthropic efforts. Funders identified 54 distinct organizations as grant recipients. This is likely an undercount as not every respondent provided a comprehensive list. When asked who benefited from their funding, organizations listed: • children • ethnically diverse populations