Issue link: https://blog.providence.org/i/1367431
22 would address the importance of all three phases but would also accept that there is nothing inherently wrong with funders being true to their missions or organizational priorities. Lessons Learned and Next Steps The philanthropic community performed a great service for the community in extremely challenging circumstances during and after the 2017 wildfires. They raised a large amount of money from diverse sources and directed it to individual and community needs quickly and in a more flexible manner than government support could provide. In Sonoma, the funders did this all without pre-existing plans and without much coordination between themselves, which makes the impact of their work even more remarkable. When asked what they would do differently, the most common response from funders was to have a plan in place. A comprehensive and coordinated plan that accounts for different priorities, approaches, values, and strengths of each member of the philanthropic commu- nity could have tremendous benefits if another disaster occurs. The creation of such a plan could have other advantages as it could bring the funder community closer together and fa- cilitate communication and collaboration in the meantime. The creation of this plan is further explored in the recommendation section. COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION RESPONSE FINDINGS Napa and Sonoma CBOs responded rapidly and largely selflessly to the immediate relief and medium-term recovery needs of their communities following the wildfires. The following findings draw on a review of available reports, survey results from 31 respondents 14 , and six key infor- mant interviews 15 . They are organized into sections on I) Funding Disaster Relief, II) Mission and Services, III) Partnerships and Collaboration, and IV) Lessons Learned and Next Steps. Funding Disaster Relief A quick snapshot of CBO fundraising indicates that post-disaster was a time of heavy fund- raising and immediate relief and recovery action. Survey results indicate that most new fund- ing raised came from private grants or individual dona- tions. A very small percentage - only 7% - indicated not raising any new funds. In terms of collaborative fundrais- ing, only about one third of respondents indicated bene- fits from collaborative fundraising. Although many orga- nizations were working to fulfill common needs, funders might not have been funding them in a way to incentivize cooperation and efficiency. Two years into the recovery process, just over half of respondents state they've expended all funding flagged for relief, recovery, and resilience (42% Santa Rosa; 63% Napa), which illustrates a gap in resilience funding. The leader of one Long Term Recovery Group indicated that the "systems [in Sono- ma] were designed for funding to be spent in 6 months. Long term stewardship has been "Systems [in Sonoma] were designed for funding to be spent in 6 months. Long term stewardship has been difficult for all. " LTRG Leader 14 31 responses signified a 46% response rate from 68 individuals contacted from a total of local 52 organizations. 15 See Appendix III.