5
Applying the Criteria and Guiding Principles: Challenges, Opportunities, and Other Considerations

This chapter addresses the third task of the study charge: “Discuss the potential challenges and opportunities of applying the committee’s selection criteria, and the possible advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches” (see the statement of task in Box 1-2 in Chapter 1). The committee approached this task by discussing key considerations necessary for the Gulf Research Program (GRP) to apply the recommended criteria and guiding principles effectively and equitably (as outlined in Chapter 4) in the selection of communities to participate in the Enhancing Community Resilience (EnCoRe) initiative. The challenges and opportunities in this chapter are referred to as “key considerations” for the EnCoRe program. The key considerations in the first section of this chapter pertain to (1) engaging the unique geographical, demographic, and historical context of Alaskan communities; (2) innovative approaches to funding and reporting in order to promote equity; and, (3) evaluation considerations and solutions for EnCoRe, from the proposal and project design phase to a comprehensive enterprise level evaluation for the entire portfolio of EnCoRe partnerships. The finding and recommendation based on these considerations are aimed at ensuring that community resilience efforts and the partnerships that support them are implemented and strengthened equitably. The final section of this chapter describes sustainability in partnerships and programs, which includes networking across communities and sectors and linking smaller and larger jurisdictions, regional entities, and communities at different capacities, including the provision of resources to facilitate long-term sustainability and catalyzing connections and synergies with existing efforts. The goal of this chapter is to explain how these considerations are critical for EnCoRe to successfully apply the core community selection criteria and guiding principles of this report (as described in Chapter 4).

CONSIDERATION 1: ENGAGING WITH COMMUNITIES IN ALASKA

Alaska is the largest U.S. state by area and the most sparsely populated, with only about 1.25 people per square mile. It has more coastline than all combined coastlines in the lower 48

states (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). The population includes 229 Indigenous Tribes across 11 distinct cultures, with at least 20 languages in four distinct language families, and hundreds of dialects (Alaska Native Language Center, n.d.; see Figure 5-1). A majority of Indigenous rural communities in Alaska are environmentally threatened by climate change, which amounts to 43 percent of all communities in the state of Alaska.¹ The remainder of this section describes the federal government’s unique approach to Alaska Indigenous governance as compared with the lower 48 U.S. states.

In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from Russia. After purchase, the United States did not definitively address Indigenous land claims until the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). ANCSA was a new approach by Congress to federal policy for Indigenous people. It extinguished Indigenous claims to lands by dividing the state

___________________

¹ ANTHC [Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium], DCRA [State of Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs], et al. (Draft report). Unmet Needs of Environmentally Threatened Alaska Native Villages: Assessment and Recommendations (proposed title). Publishing organization(s) to be determined.

into 12 regions, mandating the creation of 12 private, for-profit Alaska Native regional corporations and more than 200 private, for-profit Alaska Native village corporations, and mandating ownership of regional and village corporations to enrolled Alaska Native shareholders (see Figure 5-2). With its foundation in Alaska Native corporate ownership, this approach deviates significantly from the reservation system applied by the federal government to the lower 48 states.

ANCSA allowed for federal lease sales to move forward across Alaska, with proceeds going to the federal government. As a result, the oil and gas exploration on the North Slope of Alaska and the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System funneled revenues into the state coffers and eventually led to the creation of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC), a state-owned corporation based in Juneau that manages the assets of the APFC and other funds designated by law, such as the Alaska Mental Health Trust Fund.²

Thomas (1986) describes how many Indigenous Alaskans initially thought that ANSCA “would resolve basic issues of self-sufficiency, self-determination, and survival of cultural

___________________

² For more information, see “Who we are,” https://apfc.org/ (accessed May 5, 2022).

integrity” (p. 35). However, ANCSA created a web of ambiguities and questions about “the potential incompatibility of corporate structure, development, and maintenance of cultural heritage [and Indigenous Alaskan] dependence on the cash economy,” which would make the pursuit of traditional activities difficult (Thomas, 1986, p. 35).

ANCSA introduced structures that should be considered as EnCoRe develops and implements partnerships with Alaskan communities:

• Land ownership: regional corporations own much of the subsurface resources on their land endowments, but land swaps and other recent initiatives have allowed some village corporations to gain access to subsurface mineral estates.³
• Cash economy versus subsistence economy: some villages are up to 70 percent subsistence-based, but this subsistence economy is not recognized by regional or state jurisdictions and creates difficulty for the financial feasibility of small rural communities.
• Multilayered governance: through the creation of Tribal, municipal (city), village corporation, regional corporation, and borough structures, it is challenging to create unity and collaboration across levels of governance.
• Labor livelihoods (e.g., mining, oil, gas) versus traditional livelihoods (e.g., subsistence fishing) creates conflict and separation among local residents.⁴

The Cook Inlet

The Cook Inlet basin is a prolific hydrocarbon region. Since the discovery of Alaska’s first commercial oil field in 1957 (the Swanson River field) nine additional oil fields and 34 gas fields have been drilled in the Cook Inlet basin.⁵ In Southcentral Alaska (west and south of Anchorage), federal onshore petroleum resources are located on both sides of the Cook Inlet. Indigenous villages of the Cook Inlet region include Eklutna, Knik, Salamatof, Tyonek, Chickaloon, Ninilchik, Kenaitze, and Seldovia. The region also includes the non–federally recognized group sites of Alexander Creek, Caswell, Gold Creek, Montana Creek, and Point Possession.

Challenges and Considerations in Engaging Alaskan Communities

During data-gathering sessions, the study committee learned about guiding principles and partnership selection criteria that facilitate equitable partnerships. Many of the challenges and

___________________

³ For more information, see https://ancsaregional.com/about-ancsa/#land-selection-process (accessed February 10, 2023).

⁴ For more information, see “About the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,” https://ancsaregional.com/about-ancsa/#:~:text=ANCSA%20extinguished%20aboriginal%20land%20title,profit (accessed May 5, 2022).

⁵ State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources “Cook Inlet,” https://dggs.alaska.gov/energy/cook-inlet.html (accessed 14 April, 2022).

opportunities that the committee learned about pertain to communities both in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico region and Alaska. Yet, these sessions also revealed considerations that are particularly relevant for potential EnCoRe partnerships in Alaska. The following sections describe these unique considerations.

Environmental Challenges

Infrastructure and other community-development projects in Alaska are both limited and controlled by the extreme environmental conditions of the region. River and coastal communities have seasons of thaw, principally from April to May, when the ice conditions deteriorate and the only method of transportation is air carrier; the opposite is true when conditions are freezing for the winter (late fall). Communities that experience these fluctuations are then limited to summer months (late May through September) for any project implementation and for project planning that might require transportation or site visits. When funders consider a 12-month project season or cycle, many Alaskan communities must seek exemptions or extensions.

Data Sovereignty

Data about Alaskan Indigenous groups have historically resulted in policies that have worked against communities.⁷ Resilience-strengthening partnerships with Alaskan communities should coproduce data agreements so these agreements are locally understandable. Agreements should make the data fully accessible and usable for the communities impacted by the partnership. EnCoRe should utilize the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance: Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics.⁸

Communication and Technological Considerations

Alaskan communities need more time than communities in other regions to respond to partnership opportunities. Many Alaskan communities do not have reliable internet and function with a less time-constrained schedule than the research community. Providing enough time and resources to enable responses is critical to developing and sustaining partnerships. At the same time, access to communication technology (e.g., internet and cellular service) varies greatly from Tribe to Tribe and across jurisdictions, and extreme weather is a variable. In developing partnerships with Alaskan communities, it is critical to learn how each community, and especially the point-of-contact within each community, are best able to communicate. During data-gathering sessions with residents from Alaska, every

___________________

⁷ See https://usindigenousdata.org/ (accessed May 5, 2022).

⁸ For more information on the CARE principles, see Chapter 2, Carroll et al., 2020, and https://www.gida-global.org/care (accessed May 5, 2022).

person noted that in-person conversations are far more effective than technological communication; however, Alaskan experts also noted that transportation is the costliest part of engaging with communities, often consuming a large portion of project budgets.

An expert at Native Movement (Ruth Miller), a nonprofit organization that focuses on grassroots mobilization and community improvement, told the committee that the starting point to engaging with Alaskan Indigenous communities by external entities should be the recognition of Indigenous rights and land sovereignty, and the unique contributions (e.g., knowledge, perspectives, world views) that Indigenous people provide.⁹ Additionally, in consulting and partnering with Indigenous people, researchers and funders need to plan to join residents in community activities, such as subsistence or traditional practices.

Working with Tribal Governments

When outsiders engage with individuals, programs, or organizations within a Tribe, it is critical that the tribal leadership is aware of the partnership and supportive of it. Without support from leadership, projects will not be cohesive with the community’s existing efforts and social infrastructure. In terms of working with either the state, a regional entity, or a Tribe, our Alaskan experts stressed that the local Tribe is generally the most effective scale to pursue, both in terms of channeling funds where they are most needed and making sure that the project is effective at positively impacting the people who need it most. However, many Alaskan Tribes are small and therefore lack a population base for capacity-building efforts, including basic technological capacity. To facilitate partnerships with small and underserved communities in Alaska, the EnCoRe initiative may need to first engage with regional or statewide networks for communication and capacity support.

While the federal government recognizes Tribes, the state has only recently passed a resolution “recognizing” Tribes. However, unlike federal recognition, the state resolution does not create any new fiscal or policy obligations. The resolution has the potential to create a normative expectation that state agencies treat tribal partners similarly to how they treat municipal partners in project cocreation and funding, but a lack of policy obligation might still present a barrier to reaching the tribal level. Furthermore, turnover in state agencies is high, while regional entities might be more helpful because they are often more stable. If the local Tribe is a very underserved community, outside entities should consider hiring a regional consultant to assist in developing partnerships with the Tribe and facilitating the successful development and implementation of the intended program or project. Two trusted partners that work statewide are the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)—a nonprofit tribal health organization—and the Denali Commission—an independent federal agency designed to

___________________

⁹ Comments by Ruth Miller, Native Movement, in a panel presentation to the committee on October 4, 2021.

provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska that works with Native and non-Native Alaskan communities.¹⁰

Across Alaska, different communities have different cultural strengths and collective memories: different boarding school histories, experiences with the U.S. government, and disaster histories (see NCAI and MSU, 2012). Recognizing site-specific knowledge and history is crucial to establishing trust and building relationships. Most Indigenous history is oral and tribal elders are the local scholars who carry the oral history. The oral method of communication and strength varies from community to community.

CONSIDERATION 2: CREATING EQUITABLE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

A recurring theme in committee discussions and in the philanthropy literature is that, too often, the grant application, funding, and reporting processes exclude diverse and community-based organizations because of high bureaucratic hurdles (Bull and Steinberg, 2021; Chan and Fisher, 2016; Garry, 2021).¹¹ Common critiques include the length and complexity of applications, which place a heavy burden on organizations with small staff and few existing resources; restrictions on how funds can be used, which limit an organization’s ability to support staff and other capital expenses that affect their ability to pursue critical programmatic activities; and reporting requirements that place additional burdens on underserved organizations. There are a number of tangible, practical approaches the EnCoRe initiative can consider in order to avoid these common pitfalls and work toward greater equity in its funding processes. EnCoRe can address inequities in funding patterns and ease the burden on applicants by playing a more active role in recruitment and technical assistance than is common for funding agencies. Examples of how the EnCoRe initiative can achieve equity in funding opportunities include the following:

• Taking an active role in researching and vetting community-based organizations doing relevant resilience and public health work and inviting them to apply for appropriate opportunities, rather than relying on those organizations to seek out the funding opportunity, particularly when a pilot project presents a good opportunity to try a new activity or approach (Chan and Fischer, 2016).¹²
• Incorporating community input into funding calls, especially region-specific opportunities, to ensure that community priorities are represented (Arnott et al., 2020).
• Providing technical assistance to applicants throughout the process, including providing language or cultural translation when appropriate and/or enlisting local assistants with the

___________________

¹⁰ For more information about ANTHC, see https://www.anthc.org/who-we-are/overview/ (accessed May 5, 2022); for more information about the Denali Commission, see https://www.denali.gov/ (accessed May 5, 2022).

¹¹ Comments shared with the committee by Ruth Miller and Juan Parras, Environmental Justice Panel, October 4, 2021, and Desirae Mack and Evon Peter, Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021.

¹² Comment shared with the committee by Evon Peter, Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021.

• language and cultural competence to assist applicants, including pre-reviewing drafts (Chan and Fischer, 2016; Francis et al., 2018), and providing diversity, equity, and inclusion training to review panelists.
• Ensuring that review panelists represent a range of relevant academic and practice-based knowledges (Chan and Fischer, 2016).¹³
• Providing connections to appropriate sources of data or other information (e.g., vulnerability assessments) that could provide a baseline for an identified need for enhanced community resilience across dimensions of vulnerability to climate change, natural disasters, environmental degradation, and threats to health.
• Providing capacity-building opportunities to grantees during the grant period, such as nonprofit management or skills-development activities (Francis et al., 2018).¹⁴ However, these capacity-building opportunities should be tailored and adapted to the specific needs and capacities of grantees, so as not to add to a community’s administrative burden.

Difficult bureaucratic processes can be internal to communities and local governments and/or external and originate from the funding programs themselves. Simplifying the application process and shifting administrative burdens to GRP or to the partnering institution (e.g., in the case of university and community-based partnerships) can alleviate the burden of bureaucratic processes and allow communities to focus on completing project goals. In this respect, the EnCoRe initiative can consider the format of the funding application. In order to reduce the administrative burden for applicants, the application should be as concise and streamlined as possible¹⁵ and aim for a process that takes 10–15 hours to complete (Chan and Fischer, 2016; Le, 2015). Providing easy-to-use templates for applications can also reduce the administrative burden.¹⁶ The EnCoRe initiative can consider nonwritten applications, which will open the door for organizations with few staff and existing resources, and communities in which oral conversation is the principal form of communication.¹⁷ Video applications, site visits, or interview-based processes should all be considered (Chan and Fischer, 2016).¹⁸ Bureaucratic processes can be an insurmountable hurdle to many communities.

While encouraging applications in a variety of formats is important, GRP should be aware that an electronic application process may exclude some communities entirely. Exclusion because of a lack of broadband access recently occurred during the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) application period. Only about half of the eligible communities applied for funding from

___________________

¹³ Comment shared with the committee by David Shaw, GoMRI, October 25, 2021, and Evon Peter, Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021.

¹⁴ Comments made to the committee by Mathew Sanders, LA SAFE, October 25, 2021, and Maria Vorel, Project Impact, January 21, 2022.

¹⁵ Comments made to the committee by Desirae Mack, Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021.

¹⁶ Comments made to the committee by Danny Paterson, Gulf Regional Panel, January 28, 2022.

¹⁷ Comments made to the committee by Evon Peter, Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021.

¹⁸ Comments made to the committee Matthew Druckenmiller and Evon Peter, Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021.

the program, largely because the application forms noted that the TBCP preferred that applications be submitted online—an impossibility for many tribal communities that lack broadband access (Pedrosa, 2022). While budget transparency is important in all grant processes, the EnCoRe initiative can consider accepting budgets in a variety of formats as long as the budgets contain the necessary components; this would further reduce the workload for applicants who may need to change budget formats each time they apply to a different funder (Le, 2015).¹⁹

The amount and timing of funding can be considered to maximize support and reduce burdens for grantees. Sustained funds can help organizations continue successful work without having to divert resources to additional funding applications (Garry, 2021).²⁰ Sustained funding also helps to ensure continuity of services to communities, so community members are not harmed by a valuable service ending suddenly.²¹ GRP can also consider the size of awards; for example, small grants may carry the same administrative costs to awardees as larger, sustained awards. Accountability and reporting requirements can be incorporated into longer-term funding agreements while simultaneously supporting community-based work that may take time to become fully sustainable.

Streamlining reporting can also ease the funding process for community-based organizations. Interim reports, in particular, can be kept as concise as possible; and verbal reports or conversations may be appropriate instead of written reports in some cases (Chan and Fischer, 2016; Francis et al., 2018). GRP can also provide technical assistance with evaluation and final reporting to help ensure that grantees are able to fully capture and demonstrate the impact of their work, as well as enhance their own learning and organizational development (Chan and Fischer, 2016; Francis et al., 2018; Le, 2015).

CONSIDERATION 3: KEY PROGRAM AND PARTNERSHIP EVALUATION

The report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019) Building and Measuring Community Resilience aptly articulates ongoing challenges that communities face with regard to measuring their current and ongoing resilience efforts (pp. 4–5).²² In the face of these challenges, the 2019 community resilience consensus committee made the following recommendation (#5): “The GRP should develop a major, coordinated initiative around building or enhancing community resilience in communities across the Gulf region” (NASEM, 2019, p. 7). This recommendation was the impetus for the EnCoRe initiative. The

___________________

¹⁹ Comments made to the committee by Desirae Mack, Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021.

²⁰ This idea was mentioned multiple times, in general conversation; by speakers in the Alaska Panel, December 17, 2021; and by Ruth Miller, Environmental Justice Panel, October 4, 2021.

²¹ Comment made to the committee by Julie Olson, Gulf Regional Panel, January 28, 2022.

²² These challenges include lack of consensus on the definition of resilience; a large array of available tools, none of which are currently accepted as a gold standard tool that is broadly applicable to all communities; and incompatibility of (sometimes rich) datasets among existing community stakeholders, resulting in a lack of common metrics across sectors, communities, and regions.

committee also made the three following recommendations, designed to highlight ways to move forward with regard to community resilience (NASEM, 2019, pp. 7–9, emphasis added):

• For each community in the Gulf Research Program (GRP) community resilience initiative, the GRP should develop and employ a community resilience framework that includes: (1) community engagement to engender buy-in around resilience priorities, goals, and leadership; (2) resilience across multiple community capitals; (3) measures and ways to track progress that are useful to decision makers; and (4) investments in resilience that result in multiple benefits.
• The Gulf Research Program should create, finance, and maintain a resilience learning collaborative for diverse stakeholders to exchange information about lessons learned, approaches, challenges, and successes in their respective and collective work to advance community resilience in the Gulf region.
• The Gulf Research Program should implement longitudinal research associated with its community resilience program.

The committee for the present study supports, affirms, and echoes the above recommendations that were reached by its colleagues in 2019. However, across the work of the current committee, these were not the only considerations identified for emerging EnCoRe evaluation efforts. In fact, four different evaluation-related considerations were raised during this committee’s work that are necessary to apply the recommended selection criteria and guiding principles effectively. We will briefly describe each consideration and ways forward for the EnCoRe initiative.

Preproposal and Proposal Evaluation

Careful evaluation is needed at the preproposal and proposal stages to determine which communities and which partnerships are poised to use EnCoRe resources most effectively and efficiently for enhancing community resilience and public health. The following questions can aid in this evaluation:

• Is the partnership equitable and inclusive of the community members most impacted?
• Are there baseline measurements of resilience?
• Is there readiness to engage, a receptive context and culture, and an alignment with local community values?
• Do the communities (or consortium of communities and stakeholders) that are proposed for funding demonstrate the core criteria (see Chapter 4)?

The following strategies may aid EnCoRe in preproposal and proposal evaluation:

• Site visits and site/community development processes prior to funding.
• Planning grants as an entry point into longer-term partnerships with underserved communities.
• Community recruitment strategies that are nontraditional, innovative, culturally connected, and community-centric (see Consideration 2, “Creating Equitable Funding Opportunities”).
• A stream of developmental funding within EnCoRe.

Internal Evaluation of EnCoRe

An internal evaluation mechanism is needed for determining how EnCoRe will distribute resources equitably. Communities responding to the same call for funding may vary in their overall and program-specific capacity. Communities may also have differing levels and types of resources to contribute to the partnership. Therefore, EnCoRe needs to consider how to fund previously overlooked communities and support them with potentially different funding structures from those directed to communities that have already received considerable funding. Based on what we have learned, traditional evaluations of proposals are unlikely to be effective, and different internal evaluation strategies may be needed.²³ The following questions can aid in internal evaluation:

• Are there processes in place to align with the local community resilience framework and support successful implementation?
• Have potential barriers to successful implementation (e.g., seed or planning grants, capacity-building initiatives) been addressed?
• Are resources being distributed equitably across the portfolio?
• Have the proposed interventions been considered in the context of the history and outcomes of previous interventions and approaches?

Ongoing Partner and Project Evaluation

EnCoRe will need to develop and implement project-specific and embedded evaluation strategies that include formative and summative assessments across time and strong community participation (Milstein and Wetterhall, 2000). To facilitate this type of evaluation, funds for the EnCoRe partnership can be allocated for the documentation of the project and to determine whether the stated outcomes from the proposal were obtained. For this consideration, strategies to simplify the reporting structure are essential, particularly when EnCoRe engages with underserved communities. Ongoing partner and project evaluations would benefit from being routine and informative, with stakeholder investment, voice, and buy-in. The development of a

___________________

²³ Comments made to the committee during the GoMRI panel discussion, October 25, 2021.

standardized template with discrete response categories might be particularly valuable. The following questions can aid in partner and project evaluation:

• Are current interorganizational networks and communication processes working effectively and efficiently?
• Are the implementation strategies and processes for enhancing community resilience and public health working effectively?
• Can these evaluation strategies achieve the proposed outcomes?

Collective Impact and Enterprise Evaluation for the EnCoRe Initiative

EnCoRe needs to avail itself of the lessons learned from related efforts, described and summarized previously in this report (see Chapter 3), as it develops and implements novel strategies for determining the collective impact of EnCoRe’s entire funding portfolio. Collective impact is a practical framework for measuring shared long-term outcomes across multiple projects that are working in the same geographic footprint (see case study on the Gulf Region Health Outreach Program, Chapter 3). The results of a collective impact assessment can provide EnCoRe communities with a political voice, especially when contesting the structures and policies that permit the conditions that continue to make communities vulnerable.

Collective or enterprise evaluation efforts have much to offer but require a thoughtful investment in infrastructure support and cohesive scientific approaches within and across project exchange throughout the life of EnCoRe. An EnCoRe enterprise evaluation, for example, could identify one to three long-term outcomes that cross all projects, which will support a shared agenda at the outset and make cohesion across projects more likely (Born, 2017). Nested within these long-term outcomes, individual proposals for communities could include a logic model with activities, short-term outcomes, and intermediate outcomes, which could directly result in achieving one or more of these long-term impacts (Sherman et al., 2019b) and provide EnCoRe a starting point for an enterprise evaluation. Ongoing review and dedicated use of project-specific and collective logic models promotes project synergy and enhances collective impact (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2017). Implementation of an enterprise evaluation is also facilitated by dedicated resources for regular, directed interactions; an expectation of shared outputs and collaboration; and an enterprise-evaluation facilitator that routinely works with project leaders to advance the meta agenda. This approach would be especially important if EnCoRe or some subset of projects (e.g., delineated regionally) can be encouraged to develop a broad partnership to create added value.

SUSTAINABILITY OF ENCORE PARTNERSHIPS

Finding 5.1: In addition to the recommended core criteria and guiding principles, the success of the EnCoRe initiative will be enhanced by partnership sustainability. Sustainability can be achieved by catalyzing connections and synergies with existing efforts and supporting the launch of new collaborations. The National Academies plays an important role as a neutral convener in a variety of science policy contexts and has the potential to play a role in helping existing and new efforts in the Gulf region and Alaska work more effectively together for the benefit of communities.

Addressing the most complex and vexing challenges in creating resilient communities will come only when a diversity of thought, expertise, and resources is brought together to form long-term and lasting solutions. As EnCoRe seeks to be an innovative funding mechanism that can support communities in a way that promotes enduring capacity building and meaningful resilience gains, it is critical to consider how other entities and efforts can also support these outcomes and sustain progress. The National Academies report that recommends that GRP develop a long-term community engagement program, which became the EnCoRe initiative, found that “communities are better able to pursue resilience-building efforts when those efforts align with other community initiatives and provide multiple community benefits” (NASEM, 2019, p. 47). The following section describes how EnCoRe is uniquely positioned to increase the sustainability of its partnerships in the broader landscape of existing efforts, as well as the opportunities and challenges associated with aligning with regional and national efforts, including communities of practice (CoP), networks, and coalitions.

POTENTIAL ALIGNMENT WITH EXISTING EFFORTS

It may be useful for EnCoRe to think about sustainability in terms of its partners building a support network by creating new partnerships and by developing new or enhanced abilities to access resources from governmental and nongovernmental sources. When EnCoRe support ends, those communities that have established partnerships providing mutual benefits and have gained

the skills necessary to apply for and manage funding or in-kind support from other entities will be positioned to thrive in the long term.

Multijurisdictional local and regional planning agencies play an essential role in developing resilience strategies for much of the country (Dabson et al., 2012; NADO, 2015). The impacts of climate change, from the increasing frequency of extreme heat events to heightened flood risks and the impacts of rising sea levels, will severely impact the functioning of many local governments. In fact, cities and counties are the primary entities that will have to respond to many of these challenges to protect peoples’ health, safety, and welfare. Climate adaptation planning will happen at the local level because the impacts will be varied and location specific. However, the capacity for localities to meet these challenges is also extremely varied. Cities such as Houston and Miami are large and sophisticated entities with infrastructure budgets in the billions of dollars. Midsized cities, such as New Orleans, Louisiana, or Tampa Bay, Florida, have dedicated departments for addressing sustainability and the challenges of climate change. In these cases, communities can mobilize internal resources and access external support for adaptation planning. In contrast, the vast majority of local governments are small towns and county or parish governments that lack adequate internal resources and often lack the expertise needed to access federal programs and other means of support without external assistance. These communities are often also the most vulnerable and historically disenfranchised. A lack of resources at the local government level to help these communities address the growing threats of climate change is one of the most significant barriers to implementing a successful and equitable climate adaptation strategy at both the local and regional levels. Multijurisdictional planning agencies play a key role here, and the sustainability of EnCoRe partnerships would benefit from extending these partnerships to such agencies. Additionally, aligning with extra-community programs or networks, such as a regional or multijurisdictional planning agencies or councils, can mitigate the impacts of losing a mayor, manager, or champion at the local community level.

Supported by pooling resources from many jurisdictions, and often with additional state support and funding from federal contracts, planning agencies provide many of the types of services to smaller communities that larger wealthy areas are able to provide on their own. Without this assistance, many cities and counties would struggle with basic operations such as building-code enforcement or zoning administration. Planning agencies also work to enhance community resilience by supporting the disbursement of federal funds for hazard mitigation planning, as well as housing, transportation, environmental protection, economic development, and other activities. Increasingly, resilience is an explicit concern for these entities and their member communities. In addition to supporting access to resources and resilience planning and implementation, regional planning agencies provide an important educational function. Frequently, professionals working for these multijurisdictional agencies are the most trusted sources for needed scientific data and resilience planning practices. Their role in increasing community resilience is critical, especially for ensuring that efforts to improve resilience are implemented in a fair and equitable manner that addresses all communities, regardless of wealth and resources.

As we learned during our information-gathering sessions and from committee experience, many entities in the Gulf region can provide assistance. This region is richly diverse with potential collaborators and expertise; however, these have not always been connected effectively, and opportunities for long-term impact and sustainability have been missed. Potential collaborators include programs and organizations, such as programs funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (several federal agencies), the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (a coalition of state and federal agencies, tribal governments, communities, academic organizations, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations in the region), the National Sea Grant Program (provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], including the Gulf States and Alaska), the Sea Grant’s Community Resilience Initiative, The Water Institute of the Gulf (independent nonprofit), the NOAA Community Resilience Hub, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC, a program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]), the National Science Foundation’s Navigating the New Arctic Program, and the Alaska Native Health Consortium (see Chapter 3 for other relevant programs with which EnCoRe can partner). Additionally, Community Development Financing Institutions (CDFIs) have significant potential to assist communities on an ongoing basis. There is a coalition of CDFIs, and one area of focus is on disaster recovery.²⁴ Also present in one shape or another are resilience communities of practice (CoPs), which can be an important source of expertise, lessons learned, and connections for communities. For example, in 2009, NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Regional Collaboration Team and the four Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Programs (in Florida, Missouri/Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas) began to form the Gulf of Mexico Climate and Resilience Community of Practice.²⁵ This CoP includes individuals from a variety of Gulf communities as well as extension practitioners and state and federal agency representatives. In Florida, there are a number of regional resilience coalitions or compacts, and the Florida Housing Coalition is an affordable housing coalition that focuses on resilience issues.²⁶ There are also coalitions dedicated to address health and mental health impacts, such as the Gulf States Health Policy Center (GS-HPC).²⁷

___________________

²⁴ The Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI Coalition) is a national organization in the U.S. promoting the work of community development financial institutions (CDFIs). For more information, see https://cdfi.org/disaster-relief/ (accessed February 15, 2023).

²⁵ The Gulf of Mexico Climate and Resilience CoP enables local decision-makers and those involved in extension, outreach, and education to collaborate on incorporating all types of coastal hazards into Gulf Coast communities’ comprehensive plans; it holds annual workshops and develops common approaches for working with federal, state and local decision-makers, such as planners, emergency managers, and coastal zone managers, among other relevant groups. For more information, see https://masgc.org/climate-resilience-community-of-practice/about1 (accessed February 10, 2023).

²⁶ For more information about the Florida Housing Coalition, see https://flhousing.org/about/ (accessed February 10, 2023).

²⁷ The GS-HPC aims to reduce health disparities and improve health outcomes in the Gulf, conducts health policy research, and builds community coalitions to improve the health rankings of the five Gulf States (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida). The GS-HPC is a partnership of BayouClinic, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and The University of Southern Mississippi. For more information, see https://gshpc.org/index.php/about-2/ (accessed February 15, 2023).

The EnCoRe initiative has the capability to channel funding and provide dedicated staff and other priority resources directly to communities that need it most, while making the application process and reporting and/or evaluating requirements less burdensome on communities, compared with the processes required by federal agencies, as mentioned above. As such, EnCoRe can serve as a testbed for future federal, state, regional, and private efforts to impact communities positively. Additionally, EnCoRe can fund resources that federal and state agencies cannot always provide, such as food, child care, transportation, if these services are not available locally, and EnCoRe can offer other forms of compensation for community participation in EnCoRe efforts. EnCoRe can connect communities with the greatest need to grant writers and program managers, which is normally not an option with federal or state programs.

The EnCoRe initiative is unique in focusing on and highlighting the interconnection between hazard resilience and health. As the human health impacts of climate change grow, EnCoRe can both raise awareness about impacts and connections, and intentionally convene representatives from multiple disciplines at the community level. Creating resilient communities is about empowering their inherent abilities and developing new ones, rather than a typical research project or grants program. The EnCoRe initiative can also facilitate connectivity and empower collaboration among entities to ensure long-term sustainability and resilience by selecting partnerships that clearly demonstrate a drive and mechanisms for sustainability over the long term. Federal funding to support resilience and climate adaptation continues to grow (e.g., FEMA’s BRIC program, the Community Development Block Grant Mitigation program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), but applying for and administering federal funding is complex and presents an insurmountable obstacle for many communities. EnCoRe could provide significant benefits and increase the sustainability of its partnerships by collaborating with or increasing the capacity of communities to secure federal grants.²⁸

Additionally, EnCoRe could consider developing a requirement for participating communities to connect with some number of potential partners that could provide ongoing support in some form. Communities often are unaware of who to ask or how and where to start developing collaborations with other supporting entities and communities; therefore, they may need help both identifying relevant partners and connecting in a way that leads to ongoing engagement. EnCoRe needs to avoid excluding any potential partnerships by this requirement, and instead consider developing a resource page that provides communities with contacts to supporting entities and incentives to connect with these entities.

Additionally, the EnCoRe initiative would benefit from developing its own sustainability plan and should consider requiring sustainability plans for the participating communities that have the capacity and connections to do so over the course of their project. The sustainability plan should include ongoing partnerships and sources of financial or in-kind resources to

___________________

²⁸ For example, EnCoRe could make communities aware of opportunities such as the BRIC best practices manual released by the Environmental Defense Fund and AECOM (see https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/FEMA%20BRIC%20Application%20Best%20Practices%20and%20Recommendations_FINAL.pdf (accessed May 18, 2022).

continue building capacity moving forward. Again, communities may need help identifying and learning how to access resources directly or through partnerships. This type of support for long-term sustainability will be incredibly important, but as noted above, such a requirement should not disqualify the communities with the greatest need and most compelling justification for selection as an EnCoRe partner. Finally, EnCoRe can ensure sustainability by forming a network of participating communities that could itself become a community of practice (CoP). In selecting the communities for participation, EnCoRe could select a percentage of proposals that have the opportunity and capacity to participate in a cross-regional CoP. During partnership development, EnCoRe can connect the appropriate resources to the applicants with the most compelling needs and opportunities.

Many underserved communities do not have the means to identify partners and potential sources of long-term support. As we have heard, it takes time to build and maintain relationships (NASEM, 2019).²⁹ Aligning with other organizations and efforts requires willingness of all partners to engage and clearly commit to effective relationship building. CoPs, while extremely valuable for both learning and moral support, struggle to get funding on an ongoing basis, so they may dissolve over time. Additionally, continual turnover in organizations can require starting from scratch on relationship building. Too often it is assumed that communication and coordination are free, whereas in reality, this usually requires the most resources in terms of time, effort, and finances. EnCoRe could support such activities.

___________________

²⁹ Comments made to the committee by the Alaska and Sea Grant and the Consortium for Resilient Gulf Communities (CRGC) panels, on December 17, 2021, and January 28, 2022, respectively.