Issue link: https://blog.providence.org/i/1367431
19 "It's been fascinating to see the dynamics." [I hope] the foundations would pull together to create a plan [investing] in staff for planning and programs for planning." 13 Kramer, Mark & John Kania. "Collective Impact", Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Winter 2011) accessed at https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact#. Interview Findings Interviews with Napa and Sonoma funders were designed to explore survey topics more deeply while also addressing questions that were not raised on the survey. The most sub- stantial topics discussed were planning and coordination. Every interviewee offered substantial thoughts on partnership, collaboration, and coordina- tion between funders. As on the survey, there was not clear agreement on how extensive collaboration should be, or what form it should take. Several cited existing forums, such as the Sonoma Funders' Circle, ROC Sonoma, and each county's COADs and VOADs. However, few organizations seemed ready to say that any of these was the best leader going forward, or the most effective venue for coordination. Instead, they cited obstacles similar to those mentioned on the survey: varying missions, lack of trust between organizations, an unwillingness to surrender some decision-making authority, not having the necessary time to collaborate, and organizational egos or concerns over getting credit. One philanthropic leader stated, "It's been fascinating to see the dynamics." This leader expressed their wish that "foundations would pull together to create a plan [investing] in staff for planning and programs for planning." Many wondered what structure or model partnership would take and what would be the tangible benefits for the participating organizations or the community at large. When asked about a plan for the future, the first thing that usually was raised by funders was their own organization's planning efforts, which included tactical plans and sometimes a loose funding plan for future disasters, and sometimes one key partnership with a CBO or collaborative response group. Reflecting the discussion on partnership and collaboration, there is less clarity on creating a collective plan. There is a definite level of desire to embrace this collective work, as many recognized the potential for increased efficiency and impact if a plan were in place. Still the typical pitfalls of collective action are also evident 13 . Some even identified prevention as a way for grant makers to collaborate currently. However, some felt that if disagreement about funding priorities or strategies would prevent planning and coordination. As noted earlier, there were tensions between funders in how to respond to the fires. The interviews with funders identified three perceived divides in the philanthropic response: 1. A divide between a flexible, relational approach for distribution of resources and one that is more data driven. 2. A divide between decision making process that focuses primarily on equity versus one that supported anyone affected by the fire regardless of their socioeconomic situation 3. A divide between grantmaking that focuses on immediate relief compared to those that focused on medium term recovery or long-term resilience work. These perceived divides potentially stand in the way of stronger collaboration and planning.