Issue link: https://blog.providence.org/i/1367431
20 Therefore, it is important to identify if these divides are real and meaningful or primarily the result of perceptions. To the extent that they are real, stronger philanthropic collaboration would require identifying these divides and communicating on how a coordinated response effort would bridge or incorporate them. How Resources are Distributed Under normal circumstances, when deciding how to distribute grants, funders make a stra- tegic decision on how much to factor in data on need, impact, capacity and the like and how much to value flexibility and relationships. The two are not mutually exclusive, and no funder lives on either extreme. That is, no funder ignores data entirely, nor are they completely be- holden to them. In disaster relief, funders often feel quickly evolving pressures to get money out as quickly as possible, and the chaotic situation means reliable data is in short supply. As noted earlier, 64% of funders reported on the survey that getting data was "somewhat" or "very" difficult. They pointed to the rapidly changing situation, the lack of a central clearinghouse for data, an inherent time lag, and the number of players in the relief efforts as complicating factors in getting data. In this environment, funders reporting following one of two paths. Those that were already predisposed to use data took their time to get the data they needed to make their decisions. They used techniques such as listening sessions, interviews, and researching other disaster response efforts while continuing to look for quantitative information. Some delayed their grant making; others sought to be responsive in their relief giving while relying on data for their longer-term support. An alternate method was to skew more towards relational and flexible giving. For these funders, they drew more on existing relationships, trust, and the input of community and political leaders, rather than waiting to get and use data or follow a delineated process. This distinction seems to be real and meaningful. Both approaches have advantages and dis- advantages. A more data-driven approach may be more effective in distributing support to the places where it is most effective but can require more time to put in place. A relational approach is quicker but may be less efficient or create service gaps. While the two approaches are different, they do not have to be contradictory. A coordinated plan could recognize the distinct strengths and weaknesses and create a path by which they complement each other, and lead to greater community benefit. How an Equity Lens is Applied According to the funder survey, every funder considered equity in their grant making. How- ever, not every funder made it a priority—42% said it was a critical priority, while 25% said it was not a priority at all (the remaining 33% said it was "among the priorities"). In inter- views this finding was confirmed, but funders could discuss what equity meant to them, and provide more information on how they considered it in their grant making. The interviews demonstrated that there was not a uniform definition of "equity," nor a shared understand- ing of how to apply an equity lens.