Study looks at funded partnerships between nonprofit organizations and researchers

Front-line communities, those in regions most severely and immediately affected by increasing weather hazards and climate extremes, can benefit from partnerships between local organizations and academic researchers. However, such coproduction efforts—or collaboration between multiple entities to create solutions-focused knowledge and services—are not always equitable.

The 2022 Consortium for Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast (CCRUN) Community Climate Resilience Grant competition provided 1-year, $25,000 grants to four nonprofit organizations supporting climate resilience in underserved communities. Each of the organizations—Eastwick United CDC, GreenRoots, Groundwork Elizabeth, and Groundwork Hudson Valley—was located in the northeastern United States and paired with a CCRUN-affiliated university.

As program managers of the effort, Katherine Cann and colleagues assessed its effectiveness in an article published in Community Science. They report that the program was largely successful at fostering partnerships among nonprofit organizations, university researchers, and historically disinvested communities to mitigate climate hazards.

For example, the grants funded community tree-planting events, youth engagement activities, and efforts to develop a city climate action plan. Researchers provided resources, such as a set of large maps to display flood data in one community, and services, including language translation so another nonprofit’s work could be shared with community members.

However, the researchers also identified several areas to build effectiveness and equity for future coproduction projects. Streamlining and simplifying the funding process is crucial, they found, considering that a partner university’s payment systems or reimbursement schedules may not align with a partner nonprofit’s immediate needs or pregrant budget.

Acknowledging funding limitations and expectations, too, could help the organizations and researchers come to more realistic conclusions about what can and can’t be achieved with grant funds. They also recommend improving transparency in the competition process by using a clearer rubric for scoring grant candidates.

Further, the authors emphasize the importance of regular conversation about both successes and concerns between community grantees and research partners to foster stronger connections. They say the findings of this assessment effort can help other coproduction partnerships operate more equitably and work toward just solutions for at-risk communities.

This story is republished courtesy of Eos, hosted by the American Geophysical Union. Read the original story here.