Six Months Later

This post was authored by Lauren Linville, HEFN’s Communications Associate.

It seems much longer than six months ago that Hurricane Sandy turned into Superstorm Sandy and devastated parts of New York and New Jersey. In the aftermath of the storm, philanthropy responded with millions of dollars for relief, recovery, and rebuilding.

Not surprisingly, funders based in New Jersey and New York have invested heavily in these efforts. The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation in partnership with the Community Foundation of New Jersey quickly established a New Jersey Recovery Fund to address intermediate and long-range impacts from Sandy (See Margaret Waldock of the Dodge Foundation’s guest post). Within two weeks of the storm, the New York Community Trust made $500,000 in grants to disaster relief and has made $965,000 in grants since then for ongoing recovery and resiliency planning.

As philanthropy looks back at the last six months, and forward to what’s next for impacted communities, NGOs and experts have been sharing their lessons learned from Sandy.  Here are some highlights of challenges, opportunities, and advice offered by groups in the field on recent calls hosted by the Center for Disaster Philanthropy and the Council of New Jersey Grantmakers.

Challenges

Mold.  Public officials have warned that mold in houses flooded by Sandy’s storm surge is a growing threat to public health, especially as temperatures rise this spring. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has provided advanced training for responders and is working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to evaluate exposure patterns since the storm. However, groups like the New Jersey Work Environment Council have requested funding for additional intensive trainings from the NIEHS for volunteers, workers, and homeowners.

Toxic exposures.  Residents near some of New Jersey’s most contaminated places have expressed concern about toxic chemicals in storm water that flooded homes and parks. In Newark’s Ironbound neighborhood, community members worry that flood water laced with toxic sediment from the Passaic River Superfund site and chemicals from industrial zones could pose long-term health hazards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tested soil in Riverside Park, next to the Passaic River, for dioxin, mercury and PCBs. The agency concluded the soil had been contaminated during flooding, but that levels were not high enough to be considered a public health threat. The EPA plans to move forward with the Superfund site cleanup in beginning July 1, yet residents are concerned the plan will not prevent future contamination.

Permit waivers. Environmental and public health advocates in New Jersey are raising red flags about changes to the state’s permitting process.  A new waiver allows homeowners and business owners planning to rebuild on waterfront or shoreline properties to skip a step of the permitting process requiring plan approval by state regulators. Opponents say the ruling reduces oversight and encourages development in flood- and storm surge-prone areas.

Flood maps and buyouts. For some homeowners and businesses, recovery and rebuilding have been put on hold as policymakers evaluate plans for updated flood maps and buyouts. New Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps, which hadn’t been updated since the 1980s, will be used to set flood insurance requirements that will likely mean many homes in New Jersey will have to be elevated, with costs depending on the zone in which the house is located. Some residents have suspended rebuilding efforts until the new maps are finalized.  Others are lobbying FEMA to re-zone their properties to avoid costly elevation projects. Conversely, New York Governor Cuomo is offering incentives for homeowners to accept buyout offers from the state rather than wait for revised flood maps or insurance claims. In New Jersey, homeowners are still waiting for more details about buyout offers.

Volunteers with the Rockaway Waterfront Alliance help with post-storm clean-up efforts in late 2012. Photo source: Rockaway Waterfront Alliance

Volunteers with the Rockaway Waterfront Alliance help with post-storm clean-up efforts in late 2012. Photo source: Rockaway Waterfront Alliance

Opportunities

Strengthening overburdened populations.  Many families on the road to recovery were some of the most overburdened populations before the storm. As funders help communities rebuild, Ana Baptista of the Ironbound Community Corporation in Newark notes it’s important to not exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. In the short-term, Ironbound and community groups are helping impacted residents get back on their feet with case management support to help families apply for FEMA assistance, weigh buyout options, and process insurance claims. Over the long-term, NGOs are advocating for these communities to be included in crafting climate change adaptation plans.

Convening and research.  Ronna Brown, President of Philanthropy NY, and Nina Stack, President of the Council of New Jersey Grantmakers, agree that the philanthropic and NGO communities could play a key role in conversations around rebuilding. Brown suggested funders could act either as the convener or as a supporter of a convening, and she reported that some funders are supporting research into innovative ways to support communities in recovery and rebuilding.

Advice

Resist urge to get money out the door as quickly as possible. After a disaster there is usually an influx of funding and support that floods into foundations and organizations. Some groups working with Sandy funders are advising groups to think strategically about timing their support as recovery and rebuilding efforts may take years. They encourage foundations to take a measured approach to post-disaster giving to better identify gaps in support that might otherwise have gone unnoticed or addressed.

Invest in communication infrastructure. Funder affinity groups in New York and New Jersey cite existing regional networks of NGOs and foundations as key to communicating in the storm’s aftermath. They credit this type of infrastructure with making it possible for funders to set up conference calls quickly to coordinate relief efforts and share information. Groups also advise funders and NGOs to build connections with community members before a natural disaster or event happens.

Discuss disaster planning with your board. Does your board know what it would do if your community or region was struck by tragedy? Groups suggest funders discuss with their boards about disaster planning and response. Some questions they suggest for board consideration are: How would the foundation respond operationally?  At what level (geographically and financially) would the foundation support relief efforts? What will happen to groups the foundation has supported for a long time, especially if they are not involved in disaster-related work?  Funder affinity groups have also recommended that foundations not plan too much in advance of a disaster as conditions and needs evolve quickly.


Checking In with Grantmakers In Health’s New President and CEO

Faith Mitchell

Faith Mitchell

HEFN Director Kathy Sessions spoke with Faith Mitchell, Grantmakers In Health’s newly appointed President and CEO, about her plans for GIH, visions for health philanthropy, and thoughts about opportunities for collaboration on health determinants and disparities.       

Faith, congratulations on your new role as President and CEO of GIH – and congrats to GIH for such a fabulous choice! 

Thanks!

You served as GIH’s Vice President for several years, so you really know the organization and its funder community.  What are you most excited about in your new leadership role? 

In a nutshell, what excites me is the opportunity to take GIH in new directions that benefit both our organization and the funder community we serve.  That opportunity is enhanced by the fact that I’m taking the reins of a strong organization with a good staff and board, and supportive funders.  Because GIH is in good shape organizationally—and I was already familiar with the staff, board, and organizational culture—I am in a position to hit the ground running and focus on future plans.  We call these plans, which are under development, “GIH 3.0.”

Let us know when you’re ready to say more about GIH 3.0!  Meanwhile, what do you see ahead for health philanthropy? Emerging opportunities?  Sticky challenges?

One of the big challenges lying ahead for health philanthropy is the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), for which key provisions take effect in 2014.  Health funders can potentially play important leadership roles both nationally and at the state and local level in the run-up to 2014 and the years following.  In this regard, many funders are turning their attention to issues like reforming health care delivery systems, containing health care costs, protecting Medicaid, and ensuring more people get enrolled in insurance plans.

Of course, not all funders are focused on health care issues; going forward, many will continue to focus on prevention, with their efforts hopefully being reinforced by the ACA’s support of improved preventive services.  In addition, funders with a focus on the social determinants of health will continue to find ways to address the factors like housing, poverty, and poor neighborhood conditions that we know contribute significantly to low health status in vulnerable communities.

Faith, for those vulnerable communities, so much of health philanthropy has been focused on helping people with little or no health insurance.  If the US shifts closer to universal health coverage, does that create space for a new health agenda?    

That’s a big “if.”  I agree that the country seems to be gradually moving in the direction of universal coverage, but I suspect that it will take decades to reach that goal.  In the meantime, even with the advances that are possible because of the ACA, there will still be significant numbers of people who lack health insurance.  In some cases these are people who don’t know they’re eligible.  In others, immigration status forces people outside the system.  Because lack of coverage will continue to be an issue, for the foreseeable future there will be an ongoing need for health philanthropy to ensure the integrity of the health care safety net.

While we work towards making  universal coverage a reality, my dream for a new health agenda also is one that fully recognizes and addresses the social determinants of health that were mentioned previously.  Access to health care services is vitally important, but we know that it is not sufficient to make people healthier.  Addressing education, income, and the environmental quality of neighborhoods is essential if we want to achieve lasting improvements in the country’s health.

Do you see potential for more funder interest in addressing those social determinants whether it’s promoting healthier foods and physical activity or improving everyday environmental, social, and economic conditions affecting people’s e health?

The flood of statistics about overweight and obesity—and especially the escalating numbers for children—have fueled funders’ interest in promoting a Healthy Eating – Active Living (HEAL) agenda..  There is a lot of philanthropic activity in this area, from supporting school-based food and exercise programs, to funding community gardens and other programs that increase access to healthy foods in poor neighborhoods, to advocacy for new federal policies.  Funders are also interested in addressing the conditions that shape health outcomes, with the recognition that this work will require long-term commitments and investments before there are measurable results.

It was a privilege to work with you on a Health Affairs paper about philanthropy’s responses to health disparities.  Some people who’ve known you through GIH may not know you worked at the Institute of Health on their seminal work on health disparities.  What do you think are the next best opportunities for health philanthropy to make good on visions of health for all?

One of the main strengths of the health funding community is its ability to develop a vision and implement it independently.  But health philanthropy doesn’t have enough money to make lasting change on its own.  Accordingly, GIH encourages health funders to partner when they can, whether with each other, with federal agencies, or with organizations from other sectors.  Interestingly, some funders are now partnering with private banks and investment groups.

There are many possibilities.  The key element is the idea of forming creative partnerships that will further the health of individuals and communities.  It is also very important for health philanthropy to cultivate and support new health leaders, especially in vulnerable communities.  Achieving the goal of health for all will require the active involvement of diverse, and representative, voices.

GIH and HEFN have worked together now for more than a decade (!) to support funder interests in environmental health issues.  What do you think is the value of collaboration across affinity groups?   Any ideas for the next GIH and HEFN collaboration?

GIH has always benefited from its collaborative work with HEFN, which has also been a model for us of collaborating across affinity groups.  Because health both affects and reflects every dimension of people’s lives, we welcome the opportunity to work with groups from outside the formal health sector.  For us it’s win-win.

HEFN’s work on environmental factors that affect children’s health, children’s ability to learn, women’s reproductive health, and health across the lifespan are particularly fruitful areas for future collaborations, because they relate closely to the priorities of many health funders.

We have seen many good things come from connecting funders across siloes around shared values of health and equity, and we really value the GIH-HEFN Partnership.  In fact the HEFN staff is hard at work right now preparing a workshop for your 2013 annual meeting!  And can we meet again for lunch soon? 

Of course!  “The Red Line is our friend.”


Agree to Disagree

The conventional wisdom is that funders investing in the same area should strive for agreement on a collective grantmaking strategy.  It is easy to understand why:  more resources for a common effort, clearer guidance to target everyone’s grants, and greater potential for collective impact.

But I think both agreeing and disagreeing can be important when funders wrestle with a complex issue.  In fact I probably encourage friendly disagreement about as often as I try to help funders find common ground.

Why?  Problems drawing multiple funders together are usually not simple or small.  And when investments converge, it raises the stakes of decision-making.  As funders grapple with a problem and ways to address it, having some friendly disagreement may bring in more information, surface valuable questions, and reality-check assumptions.  At HEFN we try to encourage and normalize this.

Sometimes disagreement even gets baked into successful funder collaboration.  For example, many HEFN members agree that widespread exposure to health-harming chemicals is a problem.  They agree it is important to strengthen science, empower stakeholders, reform policies, and shift markets to safer materials.  They regularly disagree about who to fund towards these goals, effectively “betting on different horses” while often also providing resources so that varied grantees can connect and collaborate.
This approach has helped diversify the field, enabled experimentation and continuous learning, and prepared different stakeholders to respond to unexpected opportunities or challenges.  I think the movement tackling toxics is stronger because of it, with connections from neighborhoods to global forums, from polling places to legislatures, from boardrooms and laboratories to the marketplace.

Some of the elements that help make friendly agreement a healthy part of funder collaboration:

  •  Put cards on the table:  Straightforwardly share information about your interests, motivations, and biases.
  • Assess costs and benefits:   Make pragmatic decisions about whether potential benefits of collaborating will justify the costs of working together.
  • Identify an authentic base of agreement:  Find common ground and build trust in it, whether by sharing experiences or by articulating shared values or goals.
  • Demonstrate respect:  Cultivate respectful attitudes towards peers, grantees, other stakeholders… and for the complexities of social change problems and approaches.
  • Value relationships:  Spend time getting to know and regularly connecting with others who share values or concerns but may approach work from different angles.
  • Invest in infrastructure:   Invest in communications, convenings, and staff time to enable diverse grantees to connect, learn from one another, and work together.

In my experience, funders who develop a culture of respect, build good relationships, and invest in infrastructure can turn their diversity into more robust impact.  But I welcome disagreement!

HEFN invites funders to join us in Chicago on November 13-14 for lively discussion, agreements and disagreements about ways to protect health and the environment from polluter influence.  More information on HEFN’s 2012 annual meeting is here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 186 other followers