Issue link: https://blog.providence.org/i/1367431
21 For many respondents, equity means that giving should prioritize the most vulnerable, usually defined in socioeconomic terms. Criteria differed however; income was most often used, but others used language, focusing on those with low English proficiency. This would prioritize the undocumented, but many shared concerns that the political environment would prevent undocumented from getting services as they fear retribution. Others gave money to commu- nity-based organizations that were known to serve the most vulnerable. However, the tra- ditional definition of "vulnerable" may differ in a disaster. Populations such as older adults, people with disabilities, or renters may become more vulnerable in the wake of a disaster and may be missed by the traditional definition. Those that did not prioritize equity focused on providing resources to everyone who was seriously affected by the disaster, particularly anyone who lost a home. Their support could therefore go to the vulnerable, middle class, and affluent alike. These funders seemed to be aware that this position was somewhat controversial, but they stood by it. They were proud of their decision, and pointed to the need to help the "missing middle"—those who had sub- stantial need but may have been missed by traditional definitions of "vulnerable." Others related that in their experience, the more affluent may not have the same social networks or resilience skills, so may not have support systems on which to draw. Moreover, many of the funders that did not prioritize equity in the immediate relief period, indeed prioritized it in funding of long-term recovery efforts. The distinction between these approaches is definitely real, as differences here will lead to different allocation decisions about who is helped and how, and the impact of those deci- sions is worth discussing. In the course of this evaluation, it became clear that there is one of the key sources of tension between the practitioners of these two philosophies. Frequent implicit and explicit comments in the interviews showed that funders of both sides of the di- vide thought their approach was correct. This tension is unnecessary and counterproductive as it hinders collective decision making and prevents coordinated impact of grantmaking. As is discussed more extensively in the recommendation section, an honest conversation about the different approaches is a necessary and beneficial step towards truly collaborative plan- ning for the future. Relief, Recovery, and Resilience A final divide was between efforts that focused on the immediate relief and short-term recov- ery work and those that supported medium-term recovery and longer-term resilience efforts. As noted in the survey results, 60% of respondents did not have further plans to fund resil- ience efforts. Some funders were eager to distribute significant resources quickly and then viewed their efforts as complete. But even local funders could suffer from fatigue, burn-out, and resignation to the "new normal." Only a few funders seem to be interested and able to continue the long term rebuilding efforts to increase community and organizational resil- ience, strengthen community and organizational connections, work to prevent future disas- ters, and plan for the next event. This divide is also real, but it need not be a barrier to collective work. A broad plan would recognize that funders have different goals and approaches and would find room for orga- nizations that want to only help in one aspect. An open funder community conversation