York), environmental injustice in industrialized hog production (rural North Carolina), and lead exposure among children (Tar Creek, Oklahoma). The analysis highlighted sample policy and related outcomes that suggest the substantial role of partnerships and presented success factors and challenges faced across sites (Minkler et al., 2008).
Whether support is given or received at the national or local levels, the ability to provide or use resources in a timely manner will be seriously hampered if too many conditions are tied to their use. Participants in the committee’s workshop (NRC, 2010b) indicated that administering grants can be as time consuming as the activities they are intended to support. Some requirements were considered counterproductive. Requiring local matching funds as a condition of receiving resources, for example, can be prohibitive for rural or other communities in desperate need of support. It is essential to consider effective and flexible administration when providing grants and other funding support to allow creativity and the most effective use of resources.
It is also important that support is provided with the understanding that collaboration of the type described in this report needs long-term nurturing and may yield few short-term quantifiable outcomes. Funds provided without proper consideration of long-term benefits might actually create an environment of less productivity. Funding and resources provided for resilience-focused collaborative efforts will have greater impact if they provide incentives for groups to collaborate rather than encourage competition for limited funding. Funding mechanisms that encourage competition for grants, such as that incorporated by the DHS Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), focus on short-term results and can be biased toward certain communities. The committee finds that such programs may actually create competition that is unproductive in the long term in order to realize short-lived benefits. Further, funds directed to specific communities or outcomes may ignore the greater good done through collaboration elsewhere. More inclusive funding programs that are less targeted to specific agencies or outcomes may be more beneficial to communities in the long term.
Community resilience is more than the ability to conduct disaster response, and private–public sector collaboration is an optimal means of generating community resilience. In preparing this report, the committee faced a daunting challenge: to identify specific aspects of private–public sector collaboration most crucial for building community disaster resilience in a broader context. Box 3.3 provides a concise and overarching summary of the guidelines provided in this report, offering guidance on how the sociopolitical environment might