Recovery Capacity of Small Nonprofits in Post-2017 Hurricane Puerto Rico

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings

Although planners today generally agree that nonprofits should be involved in postdisaster recovery planning, they lack insight into the capacity of nonprofits to be engaged in recovery and whether this capacity differs by organization type. This could lead to the marginalization of small nonprofits in planning, affecting social capital formation and the sustainability of recovery plans. Using data from field research and a survey of registered nonprofits in Puerto Rico after the 2017 Hurricanes Maria and Irma, we compared the recovery capacity of small versus medium/large nonprofits. Our study shows that small nonprofits experienced lower levels of operational impact than medium/large ones but also reported lower levels of postdisaster grant funding and attended fewer postdisaster networking events and workshops. Our study also shows that small nonprofits desire additional training and technical assistance to engage with broader recovery institutions. Planners can help by providing such training and promoting networking between small and larger organizations to encourage institutional learning.

Takeaway for practice

Community-based recovery planning benefits from engaging with small nonprofits because they typically have greater connection and interest in local matters. Our study shows that small nonprofits may not have the capacity to engage in recovery despite wanting to do so. Planners can help small nonprofits to be better engaged in recovery by helping to build their capacity through pre-event training in disaster recovery, facilitating pre- and postdisaster workshops on recovery financing, and facilitating pre- and postdisaster networking.

Keywords:

• capacity building
• disaster recovery
• networking
• nonprofits
• small nonprofits

Acknowledgments

We thank the nonprofit organizations that participated in this survey as well as the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College New York for their support and advice in survey design.

Research Support

This work was supported by the College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Utah under the Scholarship Incentive Program (SIP) and a grant from the Research Foundation of the City University of New York (CUNY).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental data for this article can be found on the publisher’s website.

Notes

1 Community-based organizations tend to be associations: entirely voluntary groups or small nonprofits that operate at the neighborhood scale to meet residents’ needs.

2 CDCs are typically small sized organizations; more than 75% have between 5.5 and 11.5 employees (Walker, 2002).

3 CDBG-DR is one of the most common sources of recovery aid within the United States. Only 2% of CDBG-DR funding to Puerto Rico had been spent as of July 2020 (Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, 2020b).

4 For example, FEMA’s Public Assistance Program only allows nonprofits in educational, utility, emergency services, medical, and custodial care sectors to apply.

5 A high social vulnerability index is associated with a high percentage of older adults, low-income individuals, persons with limited English proficiency, racial and ethnic groups, people with disabilities, persons with chronic health issues, single mothers, and people without health insurance coverage.

6 Although the survey used assets to differentiate between small and larger organizations, our field research used number of employees to distinguish because asset data for attendees were not available. To address this, we provided quotes only from those nonprofits that the team knew through our prior research interactions to be small in terms of both size and assets.

7 This ensured that the organizations surveyed were actively involved in longer community recovery and not only disaster response.

8 Capital in Spanish.

9 The tool is effectively a “living” database listing organizations and institutions active in any geographic area during a specific crisis. It is populated through networking with stakeholders that are added as they are identified. The list is then distributed back to the community through an online portal or publicly available reports and maps.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Divya Chandrasekhar

DIVYA CHANDRASEKHAR ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Department of City & Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah.

Ivis García

IVIS GARCÍA ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Department of City & Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah.

Sayma Khajehei

SAYMA KHAJEHEI ([email protected]) is a doctoral student in the Department of City & Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah.