What was unique about this project and our approach (and results) is that existing sources (the desktop research) were all conducted in the absence of specific opportunities, and as such, lacked a focus on specifically informing design of funding streams in order to realize impact. With this in mind, our approach in key areas are worth calling out since they were specifically intended to surface design and implementation recommendations for funding programs. We don’t want to dive into the specifics here but simply want to call attention to the depth of the underlying research and shine a light on some key elements that we believe can be a resource for further application in California and we hope nationally.

• Funding characteristics: One of our first steps was to review the existing literature to identify gaps in funding approaches. This led to the creation of a profile of 14 funding characteristics within 3 groups. This profile describes characteristics that ideally should be present to realize the greatest catalytic impact from funding programs. Not only was this useful tool for analyzing existing grant programs (including finding strengths and gaps), but the resulting “rubric” can (and should) serve as a guide for development of future funding programs, so we are aiming for the best outcomes from the outset. Additionally by creating a common vocabulary for design, it can foster better alignment across funding streams.
• Funding distribution analysis: California has already invested a significant amount of money in addressing climate change, principally through a set of bonds and the California Climate Investments (CCI). We set out to identify the distribution patterns of this funding in order to better understand what had been done and where. The gaps and challenges we found in collating this data were significant. Billions of dollars in funding have not been tracked consistently, nor characterized in ways that allow for statewide analysis of impact and benefit. While we were able to identify a high-level picture of the funding distribution, the challenge in getting there and the many unanswered questions provide a roadmap for how to set up investments so as to better ensure the intended benefits are realized when and for whom they are intended.
• Stakeholder input: The CRP team was fortunate through this project to be able to talk directly with hundreds of people representing individual, community, and organizational perspectives. We also reviewed results of two state feedback processes and conducted our own survey. There’s much in the final report that draws together themes and stories from this work. But the depth of regional perspectives, subtle differences in need, and gaps in voices represented are worth considering on their own. This section of the full report provides a wealth of content that can help inform regional actions and follow-on feedback needs. It also points to the lack of consistency and cohesion among existing feedback processes – if we don’t know why we’re asking questions we fall into the trap of asking the same questions and not acting on the answers. This process for our team helped illuminate that challenge and ideally suggests tactics and methods that can be applied in future feedback efforts to strengthen their application and impact. 

Throughout the full report and in the appendix, there are more specific findings, detailed recommendations, regional breakouts, and analytic resources to draw. For anyone developing programs, coordinating funding, or evaluating impact and benefit, there’s a wealth in here that we hope can raise the bar at this critical moment when significant investments might help us turn the ship. If you need help navigating what our findings mean for the work you do don’t hesitate to reach out to any member of our team.

Authors: Kif Scheuer and Michael McCormick