University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

(USC Thesis Other)

A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A Strategy to Thrive During a Crisis for Nonprofit Organizations
by
Regina Anne Ruiz

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Regina Anne Ruiz 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Regina Anne Ruiz certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Emmy Min
Helena Seli
Kim Ferrario, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand the best practices for nonprofits (NPOs) to thrive
during a crisis. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was utilized to examine
underlying barriers. This research included interviews and document analysis to explore
knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences which can help nonprofits in crisis
response efforts. The participants were 12 nonprofit leaders in Santa Barbara, California, an area
which has experienced a series of crises in a 5-year time frame. Findings validated 10 KMO
assets and two knowledge gaps. The threshold to validate the knowledge gaps in this study was
fewer than seven or 58% of the participants demonstrating crisis training and protocol
knowledge. A knowledge asset validated was participants’ ability to plan, monitor, evaluate, and
adjust strategies in a crisis. Additional findings validated the assets of nonprofit leaders’
motivation to respond to a crisis, collaborate, and successfully lead their organizations in
challenging times. Finally, the organizational influences validated as assets included an
organization highly valuing participation in crisis response efforts from leaders, board of
directors, staff, and volunteers. Additional assets of effective crisis response cited in the findings
are the organization developing and utilizing crisis response resources. The validated influences
were utilized to provide three recommendations and an integrated implementation and evaluation
plan following the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
evidence-based recommendations serve as a guide for nonprofits to more effectively prepare and
respond to crises, which can ultimately save lives.

v
Dedication
To my children Malakai, Amalia, and Diego. Thank you for your love, support, and patience.
To my parents Joseph and Patricia Ruiz. Thank you for believing in me and your prayers.
To God, Jesus, Mary, and St. Joseph. I dedicate this doctoral dissertation to you.

vi
Acknowledgements
My faith and family have been the best support system any single mother could have
asked for, while pursuing a doctoral degree. My son Malakai suggested one day, if I could have a
robot do anything in my life it would probably be to write my dissertation for me. The idea made
us both chuckle because he was so innocently right. This has been a challenging process to
manage while working full time as a nonprofit vice president, raising three active children ages
4, 10, and 12 years old, and living through a global pandemic.
My children and I spent a year at home together as I worked, wrote, and became the
children’s teacher at home. I would find notes from my sweet daughter Amalia taped by my
computer when she knew Mommy had been up all night writing her dissertation: “God never
said it would be easy, but He said He would help carry the load.” Wise words beyond her tender
decade-old life. She would lift me up and remind me the reason that giving up was not an
option— my children. I thank my children for their endless patience and being quiet so mommy
could attend her classes and do her homework. It was a sacrifice for my children, and I am
eternally grateful for their support. My daughter summed it up well in the final days writing this
dissertation, as she watched me spend countless hours into the night writing and researching. She
said, “You are already an MVP. You tried your hardest and gave it your all.” She is right, I gave
this dissertation my complete effort, heart, and soul.

vii
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 2
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 4
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 5
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 6
Crisis Management and Preparedness ................................................................................ 6
Previous Disasters or Crises and Nonprofits .................................................................... 10
COVID-19 Health Crisis Response .................................................................................. 16
The Gap Analysis Framework .......................................................................................... 17
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 23
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 23
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 23
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 25
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 25
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 26
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 30

viii
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 31
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 32
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 32
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 34
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 37
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 61
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 81
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion ....................................................................... 105
Findings ........................................................................................................................... 105
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 108
Integrated Recommendations .......................................................................................... 119
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 133
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 133
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 147
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 150
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form ........................................................................................ 151

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 24
Table 2: Participants’ Demographics 33
Table 3: Assumed KMO Influences Analyzed 36
Table 4: Validated Knowledge Influences 38
Table 5: Participant Knows the Process to Train Staff to Prepare for a Crisis or Disaster 42
Table 6: Participant Can Explain the Protocol Followed for a Crisis or Disaster 48
Table 7: Validated Motivation Influences 62
Table 8: Participant Feels It Is Important for the Organization They Are Leading to Participate in
Collaborations During a Time of Crisis 77
Table 9: Validated Organization Influences 83
Table 10: Type of Organizational Improvement Due to COVID-19 Pandemic 85
Table 11: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 111
Table 12: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 114
Table 13: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 117
Table 14: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 121
Table 15: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation NPO Staff,
Leadership, Board Members and Volunteers 123
Table 16: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 125
Table 17: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. 129
Table 18: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 130

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: KMO Influences Related to NPOs and Disasters and Crises 19
Figure 2: Procedural Knowledge: Participant Knows How to Train Employees to Prepare for and
Respond to a Disaster 40
Figure 3: Factual and Declarative Knowledge: Participant Can Describe Protocol to Follow
During a Crisis 47
Figure 4: Conceptual and Declarative Knowledge: Participant Knows the Process for Creating a
Collaboration to Prepare and Respond to a Crisis 52
Figure 5: Metacognitive Knowledge: Participant Plans, Monitors, Evaluates, and Adjusts
Strategies in Crisis Preparedness 59
Figure 6: Self-Efficacy Influence on Confidence in Ability to Lead an Organization During a
Crisis 71
Figure 7: Participant States It Is Important for the Organization They Are Leading to Participate
in Collaborations in a Time of Crisis 72
Figure 8: Participant States the COVID-19 Pandemic Forced their Organization to Improve Any
Weaknesses 84

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected many nonprofit organizations (NPOs), and
a recent survey found that the pandemic’s impact could force one in three NPOs worldwide to
permanently close (CAF America, 2020). Large-scale disasters, such as the COVID-19
pandemic, Hurricane Katrina, and 9/11, have a significant effect on these organizations
(Robinson & Murphy, 2013). Robinson and Murphy highlighted that collaboration is critical
during a crisis and must be a main concern for NPOs. Because the public depends on these
entities during a crisis for social services and other critical needs, the problem of NPOs closing
due to the pandemic is important to address (Chikoto et al., 2013). Studies examining NPOs and
disasters are needed because current research is narrow (Wu & Chang, 2018). Wu and Chang
(2018) concluded more research is needed to determine the likelihood of collaboration within
NPO crisis alliances after a destructive event. These collaborations and networks can help serve
the community and keep NPOs operating during major crises.
Context and Background of the Problem
This study focused on 12 NPOs in Santa Barbara, California. In Santa Barbara, NPOs
have faced a series of once-in-a-lifetime disasters and crises over the past 3 years. In 2017, the
largest wildfire in California’s history at the time, the Thomas Fire, burned for months over more
than 280,000 acres, and the resulting rain of ash damaged air quality. On January 9, 2018, a
severe rainstorm hit Santa Barbara’s burned and bare hillsides. The heavy rain centered on the
community of Montecito, and mud flowed like rushing rivers down the streets in the middle of
the night while carrying boulders the size of cars from upstream. Eventually, a large part of the
hillside avalanched down onto the community. It destroyed homes and killed 23 people. Now,
before the scars from those disasters have healed, the NPO community faces the COVID-19
2

global pandemic. This is yet another once-in-a-lifetime crisis in a very short time. Santa Barbara
is unique in that it has more nonprofits per capita than any other county in Southern California,
according to the Center for Nonprofit Management’s Nonprofit Sector Report.
It is not only survival of the fittest for NPOs, but also for the organizations effectively
prepared for disasters (Chikoto et al., 2013). A staple study investigated NPOs’ response to the
2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China and the 2009 Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan (Wu & Chang,
2018). The research revealed NPOs’ lessons learned, strategies, and successful collaborations
during the catastrophes. The authors outlined specific approaches to crisis resource integration of
NPOs, including an effective crisis alliance in place permanently. A case study during the 2011
earthquake in Haiti created a performance evaluation method for NPO partnerships (Nolte &
Boenigk, 2011). The findings detailed the top partnership characteristics, which are trust,
experience, and communication. More research is needed to accurately analyze local NPOs’
preparedness and crisis mitigation, considering past disruption experiences and risk perception
(Chikoto et al., 2013). Chikoto et al. (2013) stressed that it is imperative to have more in-depth
knowledge of the extent to which NPOs are prepared for disasters.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the strategies for NPOs to effectively serve the
community during a crisis. The stakeholder group of analysis is NPO executive directors based
in Santa Barbara, California. The data were analyzed through a gap analysis focused on
knowledge, motivation, and organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study may benefit clients
served by NPOs. If NPOs are struggling to stay open, clients suffer. Many residents who rely on
NPOs are ultimately at a disadvantage if the NPO closes due to a disaster. The findings were
3

disseminated through an interactive web portal. In addition, an infographic version of the
findings will be available to help guide NPOs in crisis preparedness and response.
The study addressed the following research questions:
1. What knowledge influences affect how NPO executive directors prepare for a crisis?
2. What motivation influences affect whether NPO executive directors actively collaborate
with other agencies before and during a crisis?
3. What organizational influences affect how NPO executive directors respond to a crisis?
Importance of the Study
It is critically important to study NPOs and understand the framework to thrive during a
crisis. From the Red Cross to new nonprofits meeting emerging needs, NPOs impact every phase
of crisis and emergency management systems (Robinson & Murphy, 2013). Strengthening the
community was the main outcome in one study of NPO partnerships during disasters (Nolte &
Boenigk, 2011). Thus, these organizations are a critical component of disaster relief, and crisis
response collaboratives effectively meet emergency needs when a catastrophic event occurs (Wu
& Chang, 2018).
Nonprofit organizations are struggling to survive the current pandemic due to revenue
loss, and 70% of nonprofits surveyed globally struggle to cover salaries (Charities Aid
Foundation America, 2020). It is important NPOs do not close due to COVID-19 or any
significant crisis because they are essential in relief efforts. There is a lack of attention or
documentation on local nonprofits’ vital role in preparing and responding to disruptive events,
even though they provide a significant contribution (Robinson & Murphy, 2013). Robinson and
Murphy (2013) explained the value of researching local NPOs during disasters can result in
obtaining critical insight into the operation of these social systems while experiencing disruption.
4

Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework used to examine the problem of NPOs closing due to a crisis
is the Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis. The gap analysis method was used to identify gaps
in NPOs’ emergency readiness. Clark and Estes explained the importance of identifying gaps to
close those areas of liability or weakness. Three causes of performance gaps were analyzed
utilizing information from NPO executive directors pertaining to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). Examining this problem through the
lens of the gap analysis framework highlighted areas for improvement and closing the gaps for
NPOs in the context of crisis preparedness. Prior research found there is strength in numbers,
suggesting that crisis alliances and partnerships make NPOs viable and impactful during a
disaster.
The research design for this study was qualitative, and the methodology included
understanding how participants viewed their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Long-form
interviews were used to guide the research while seeking to understand the meaning participants
constructed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As Merriam and Tisdell (2015) stressed, qualitative
research is inductive, and the interviews or products are packed with descriptions. This research
included interviews with 12 executive directors from NPOs in Santa Barbara, California. By
interviewing some of the most respected NPO executive directors in Santa Barbara, the study
gained credibility and validity.
Definitions
• Collaborations: NPOs with informal partnerships to support a common effort.
• Crisis: An uncommon occurrence that NPOs did not plan for, causing extreme
difficulties.
5

• Cross-Sector Collaboration: Two or more sectors sharing resources and information to
reach a common goal that could not be achieved by one sector alone (Bryson, Crosby, &
Stone, 2006).
• Disaster: A significant natural or man-caused disaster inflicting a severe challenge on
NPOs.
• NPO: An organization with a social giving cause and granted tax-exempt status by the
International Revenue Service.
• Partnerships: NPOs with a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlining the
terms of working together for a common purpose.
Organization of the Dissertation
The organization approach for this dissertation was a five-chapter method. This initial
chapter set the stage for the basis of the study, described the theoretical framework, and
introduced key concepts for this research. It also presented three research questions that guided
the study. Chapter Two presents an overview of the staple literature related to this study. Issues
related to nonprofits during a crisis emerged in the literature, including the importance of
collaborations and planning. The following section, Chapter Three, discusses the study’s
methodology, including data collection sources, procedures, and analysis. The fourth chapter
details the research findings. The final chapter presents recommendations for practice and future
research. The main takeaway from this research is a framework for nonprofits to utilize in
preparation for a crisis to not only survive nut also thrive during a challenging period.

6

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The evolution of emergency management networks involves collaborations between a
wide array of private and public sectors (Robinson et al., 2013). Robinson et al. (2013) explained
this includes government agencies, NPOs, for-profit organizations, emergency management
organizations, law enforcement, and public health departments. Kapucu (2006) described public
and NPO partnerships’ role as bridging the services’ gap during emergencies. For example,
Kapucu (2007) discovered NPOs partnering with public agencies during the September 11, 2001,
attacks on the World Trade Center was critical in disaster response. Trust building outside of a
crisis situation between NPOs and public organizations is key. Kapucu (2007) explained
communities with solid and consistent relationships will function better during a disaster. The
author added the 9/11 disaster increased interaction between organizations by 70% (Kapucu,
2007). After the World Trade Center attacks, the federal government promoted networking
among local, state, and federal officials through the National Response Plan, which included a
standard National Incident Management System and promised disaster aid as an incentive
(Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). Nonetheless, COVID-19 negatively impacted NPOs more severely
and quickly than other sectors (Maher, Hoang, & Hindery, 2020). Maher et al. (2020) explained
that despite NPOs struggling, there has never been a more critical time in which NPO services
are needed.
Crisis Management and Preparedness
Scholars focused on emergency management consider collaborative networks an
important factor (Comfort & Kapucu, 2006), and the emergency management community has
stressed the importance of collaborations and networks for decades (Grizzle et al., 2020). A
seminal paper described the importance of networks when agencies face complex problems
7

(Rittel & Webber, 1973). Rittel and Webber (1973) used the term “wicked” to refer to these
problems. They outlined 10 characteristics of wicked problems, including no immediate test of a
solution, every attempt counts significantly, every problem is unique, and there are countless
solutions (Rittel & Weber, 1973). Grizzle et al. (2020) explained these attributes often make it
impossible for an agency to respond sufficiently to wicked problems single-handedly, proving
the need for networks, specifically diverse ones.
Federal, State, and Local Emergency Management Best Practices
The pandemic has highlighted the importance of networking quickly with unlike
organizations (Grizzle et al., 2020). Strategies to build diverse networks include deliberately
recruiting diversely, continuous support, and engagement of the network (Grizzle et al., 2020).
An example of this is the COVID-19 response in Norman, Oklahoma, where a diverse network
consisted of city government officials, representatives of local NPOs, and volunteer groups
(Grizzle et al., 2020). Emergencies tend to have a broad impact. For example, Hurricane Katrina
devastated several states (Robinson et al., 2013). Robinson et al. (2013) explained that in that
case, agencies across regions had to quickly mobilize resources, including public health,
emergency management, law enforcement, and NPOs. Robinson et al. also highlighted that
emergency response mobilization is often unpredictable and not stable. The limited preparedness
and planning in the case of Hurricane Katrina resulted in serious and fatal problems evacuating
New Orleans residents (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). The authors characterized the devastation as a
striking lesson in the lack of collaborative public management (Robinson et al., 2013). They
concluded that emergency response networks are both diverse and homogenous as well as stable
and volatile (Robinson et al., 2013). The core agencies are steady network members, with
organizations on the periphery entering and exiting quickly (Robinson et al., 2013). The authors
8

found that plan-based networks include mostly government members and a few consistent NPOs
(Robinson et al., 2013).
Pre-Crisis Emergency Management
Collaborative public management and crisis management go hand in hand, according to
Kiefer and Montjoy (2006). However, they point out the contrast between the critically quick
action required in an emergency and the relatively slow decision making within networks (Kiefer
& Montjoy, 2006). Extensive preparation is crucial but challenging, and capacity limits may go
unnoticed (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). For example, Kiefer and Montjoy analyze how New
Orleans joined the National Response Plan and had an approved evacuation plan, with a local-
state-federal network, from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
prior to Hurricane Katrina. A public-private partnership network was formed, and large-scale
exercises were held with more than 170 organizations participating. However, the authors found
that New Orleans did not have a plan to evacuate the immobile population despite the evacuation
plan’s approval from the city, state, and FEMA (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). Kiefer and Montjoy
concluded that the collapse in emergency response can be linked to preparation phase
deficiencies. The authors added that following the devastation, a robust evacuation plan was
developed utilizing emergency response networks to effectively evacuate the immobile
population (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). In addition, the researchers pointed out that while a
network identified the problem of evacuating the immobile population prior to the disaster, there
was no collaborative effort to find a solution.
Organizational Crisis Preparedness
On an individual organization level, Chikoto et al. (2013) outlined 10 disaster preparation
activities which are important to succeed when an extreme event occurs. The mitigation includes
9

attending/holding disaster-related workshops, discussing responses to disasters, assessing risks
regarding disasters, and engaging in structural/nonstructural preparations efforts (Chikoto et al.,
2013). Chikoto et al. found that NPOs are flexible to various methods to best prepare for a
disaster. The public sector relies greatly on NPOs during a disaster (Chikoto et al., 2013).
Cross-Sector Collaboration
Simo and Bies (2007) focused their research on the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Texas. The authors’ recommendations include establishing
flexible emergency funding sources to be managed at a local level, investing in existing
collaborations, and annual strategic planning, including cross-sector collaboration. Failing to
adequately prepare for a crisis utilizing cross-sector collaborative efforts can have detrimental
impacts, as seen during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita response efforts (Simo & Bies, 2007). In
these cases, Simo and Bies (2007) explained that negative results included slow emergency
response and a lack of communication coordination. Cross-sector collaboration includes NPOs,
businesses, communities, and government agencies, and the degree to which they partner can be
informal to very formal, including a MOU (Simo & Bies, 2007).
Collaboration Implementation
Complicated public problems, like a crisis, can be addressed through the framework
Bryson et al. (2006) created to produce positive outcomes for the community that cannot be
achieved independently. Bryson et al. argued cross-sector collaborations tend to develop out of
failures within single sectors; therefore, they need support from a collaboration. These initial
conditions make up the beginning of the framework described by Bryson et al. and include
unstable environments, influential organizations, and pre-existing relationships. The next step in
Bryson et al.’s design is establishing a collaborative governance structure, leadership, and
10

agreements. This step also includes managing any conflicts that may arise within the
collaborative (Bryson et al., 2006). As Bryson et al. pointed out, conflict is common in
partnerships; therefore, effective mitigation is critical. The third step is addressing contingencies
and constraints, including power imbalances within the collaborative, and differing institutional
logics (Bryson et al., 2006). Finally, Bryson et al. outline the outcomes of their framework,
which are public value, resilience, and reassessment. Accountability can be difficult in a
collaborative setting. Per Bryson et al., accountability systems tracking inputs, processes, and
outcomes are essential. Implementing a cross-sector collaborative is challenging work with rare
success, but if collaborative goals are accomplished, the value is significant (Bryson et al., 2006).
Previous Disasters or Crises and Nonprofits
Role of Nonprofits During a Crisis
A study on the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City
found that collaboration between NPOs and public sector agencies is critical in a time of crisis
(Kapucu, 2007). The response to 9/11involved more than 1,600 NPOs playing an important role.
Kapucu focused on the coordination between emergency organizations and NPOs responding to
the disaster. Kapucu (2006) noted that despite a formal protocol, NPOs responded swiftly to
meet critical humanitarian needs. Nolte and Boenigk (2011) focused on the 2010 earthquake in
Haiti to analyze the impact of NPOs during a disaster. Their research describes public agencies
and NPOs from various regions coming together to respond to the emergency (Nolte & Boenigk,
2011). Simo and Bies (2007) also found partnerships among the public sector, private sector, and
NPOs during an extreme event elevate public value. Research revealed that NPOs collaborating
with various agencies was critical in the disaster response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (Simo
& Bies, 2007). Simo and Bies (2007) described NPOs as filling voids in services due to failures
11

within city, state, and federal administrations. The authors highlighted that NPOs’ involvement
in cross-sector collaborative efforts is critical during a crisis to make up for a gap in a sector and
is a main recovery strategy (Simo & Bies, 2007). Simo and Bies pointed out a need for more
research focused on the longer-term impacts of NPOs and cross-sector collaborations during
disasters. Simo (2009) expanded the research base by focusing on the role of faith based and
NPOs at a social services hub in New Orleans set up following Hurricane Katrina and utilized
after Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The resource center was analyzed utilizing Simo and Bies’s
(2007) expanded model of cross-sector collaboration, which evolved from Byson et al.’s (2006)
original framework. Simo’s (2009) findings mostly highlight shortcomings when evaluating the
New Orleans center due to the lack of an official governance structure for the collaborative.
However, the NPOs that were part of the center’s collaborative did fill critical gaps during
response efforts (Simo, 2009).
The valuable role NPOs play in crisis response has been revealed following hurricanes
(Simo, 2009). For example, per Simo (2009), the one-stop social services center was established
in a poverty-stricken neighborhood to meet residents’ needs that were not provided by other
sectors. It is important to point out that the resource center Simo studied ultimately cannot be
categorized as a cross-sector collaboration due to it being made up of only faith-based NPOs of a
single denomination.
NPOs and Social Capital
A consensus in academic literature is that collaborations between NPOs and volunteers
are critical in responding to large-scale disasters (Kaltenbrunner & Renzl, 2019). This emergent
collaboration was examined from a structural, relational, and cognitive social capital perspective
by Kaltenbrunner and Renzl (2019), who found that NPOs should supply volunteers during a
12

disaster. This key finding means NPOs must modify volunteer training procedures to be prepared
for disasters (Kaltenbrunner & Renzl, 2019).
Partnerships During a Crisis
During disasters, partnerships between NPOs and public agencies are critical to bringing
relief to those in need (Nolte & Boenigk, 2011). Kapucu (2007) drew on network theory and
social capital to examine NPO collaborations during the complex emergency environment. The
findings were that 74% of the 43 organizations who participated in the study reported that
collaborations with other agencies helped them serve the community during an emergency. The
participants stressed the importance of establishing partnerships prior to a crisis. The research
highlighted notable changes to organizational structure, policies, and mission after the 9/11
attacks. During the 9/11 response, Kapucu stated non-emergency NPOs took on emergency
duties to greatly support the formal disaster relief organizations. The World Trade Center
disaster exposed the lack of interagency networks, and days passed before effective
communication channels were established (Kapucu, 2007). Study participants stressed the
critical need for communication between emergency response agencies and NPOs prior to a
crisis and ideally being part of the emergency response coordination efforts with public
authorities.
The research points out the value NPOs bring to communities with their resources and
expertise. For example, just hours after the 9/11 attacks, the September 11th Fund was formed
and eventually raised $506 million (Kapucu, 2007). Financially, the 34 larger NPOs raised $2.4
billion in response to the 9/11 attacks (Kapucu, 2007). The Red Cross raised the most at $988
million and also opened 12 shelters providing food, clothing, and emergency funds. The
organization helped accommodate and aid undocumented families following the disaster
13

(Kapucu, 2007). Another example Kapucu (2007) cited is the NPO New York Cares mobilizing
volunteers following the attacks and having trained almost 100 volunteer leaders since 9/11. It is
now the centralized agency for volunteer coordination in NYC for future disasters, with New
York Cares staff placed at the emergency operations center. The partnership between the New
York City Emergency Management Office and New York Cares now guides the city’s volunteer
management. Kapucu emphasized that the void of emergency response infrastructure among
New York City NPOs was a significant challenge in coordinating disaster relief operations. More
recently, COVID-19 response requires collaboration with a wide range of agencies, private
organizations, and the NPO sector (Grizzle et al., 2020).
Best Practices for Nonprofits During a Crisis
Some NPOs, in a 2020 survey, reported their agency was in better shape responding to
the COVID-19 pandemic after lessons learned from the 2008 recession (Maher et al., 2020).
Grizzle et al. (2020) highlighted a significant challenge in collaboration efforts because most
organizations rarely or never coordinated before. Many NPOs turn to collaborations to provide
their services more cost-effectively (Maher et al., 2020). Planning and practicing are critical
components of crisis preparedness (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). Also, Kiefer and Montjoy (2006)
explained that exercises help discover new problems. Nolte and Boenigk (2011) developed a
process model to better understand partnerships during disasters and found the main outcome
was strengthening the community. A study of collaborations during the 2010 earthquake in Haiti
found that communication, experience working together, and trust were the three most important
inputs (Nolte & Boenigk, 2011). Research identified the importance of NPOs’ capacity building
to respond to disasters, including a focus on cross-sector collaboration proficiency along with
management of volunteers and donations (Simo & Bies, 2007). Additional best practices
14

identified by Simo and Bies (2007) include funders formally collaborating and offering to fund
additional support during a disaster.
Formal Collaboration Structure
Simo (2009) emphasized an official governance framework’s role in cross-sector
collaboration. Best practices highlight those collaborators must be specific regarding roles and
responsibilities and formalize their partnerships (Simo, 2009). The quality of the collaboration’s
goods and services is critical, as Nolte (2018) explained, because collaborative outcomes depend
more on quality than timeliness. Having a set standard when it comes to quality will help achieve
the goals of the collaborative (Nolte, 2018). There is also a positive relationship between
collaborative outcomes and single agency outcomes (Nolte, 2018). Thus, NPOs need to decide if
they will focus on the expanded mission and community of the collaborative or keep a micro-
focus on their organization’s mission and client-base (Simo, 2009). Simo noted that cross-sector
collaborations should determine if they will be officially one entity or remain separate entities
partnering in one resource hub during a crisis. When planning a cross-sector collaborative, Simo
recommended enforcing the group’s plan utilizing a formal organizational documentation
framework from the onset. Collaboratives need to look at long-term sustainability and strengthen
any weaknesses (Simo, 2009).
Collaborative Enhancements
Cross-sector collaborations can strengthen their efforts by utilizing the recommendations
outlined by Simo and Bies (2007). As funding is key for collaborative sustainability during a
crisis, Simo and Bies advised that funders collaborate, and new emergency funding sources be
created to address the need for a quick turnaround on resources. New funding can also be used to
supplement organizations involved in the collaborative (Simo & Bies, 2007). Best practices also
15

include improved sharing of resources and information within networks, reinforced structures of
collaboration, and more strategic planning (Simo & Bies, 2007). On a local level, addressing
cross-sector civic capacity and proficiency in collaboration is a key to success (Simo & Bies,
2007). When sector or organizational gaps are identified, Simo and Bies explained they need to
be compensated for to ensure progress. Simo (2009) suggested that professionally trained staff
and volunteers are essential to building capacity within the collaborative in areas from human
resources to fundraising. To assist the New Orleans social services center, university researchers
created extensive strategic plans, compiled a list of hundreds of NPOs and public agencies in the
area, and developed a fundraising plan specifically for this collaborative (Simo, 2009). However,
Simo explained the collaborative was not using the custom resources at the time of the study, and
utilization could have had a positive impact. New recommendations include the consistent
updating of strategic plans, goals, and the collaborative’s mission (Simo, 2009).
Advanced Cross-Sector Collaboration
Participation from agencies outside of the cross-sector collaborative is essential,
specifically in regard to local rebuilding planning (Simo & Bies, 2007). Enhancing the
communication systems across sectors and strengthening ongoing relationships are additional
recommendations to improve cross-sector collaborations (Simo & Bies, 2007). Cross-sector
collaborations can do some of their best work towards long-term sustainability and capacity
building when there is not a crisis; this includes government, private sector, and NPOs
reinforcing their partnerships during that time (Simo, 2009). Following Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, NPOs filled critical gaps, but they did less collaborative work once the crisis faded (Simo,
2009). This resulted in unpreparedness when Hurricanes Gustav and Ike created extreme events
16

(Simo, 2009). Finally, Simo and Bies (2007) acknowledged that more long-term research needs
to be conducted on the impacts of cross-sector collaboration.
COVID-19 Health Crisis Response
Since March 2020, CAF America (2020) has surveyed NPOs worldwide to measure how
COVID-19 impacted their work. The agency conducted the same survey for the fifth time from
August 25, 2020, to September 2, 2020, and polled 424 organizations across 156 countries. The
analysis revealed that 91% of nonprofits continue to be negatively impacted by COVID-19, and
one-fourth expect to close within 12 months if circumstances did not improve soon (CAF
America, 2020).
Role of Nonprofit COVID-19 Crisis Response
The CAF America (2020) survey detailed the experience of the European Food Banks
Federation (FEBA) providing 90,000 tons of food in Italy during the first 5 months of the
pandemic. That is equivalent to all of the food distributed in the entire 2019 calendar year. The
pandemic made traditional revenue sources unreliable, so 83% of respondents focused on
innovating and adapting their fundraising strategies. The CAF America (2020) report describes
nonprofits’ critical role through a story focused on Habitat for Humanity Brazil. When COVID-
19 became widespread, the organization pivoted to delivering emergency food and hygiene kits
to 6,000 families. A crowdfunding campaign raised the funding for emergency kits as traditional
funding declined (CAF America, 2020). Communication, telling their story, and connecting with
their stakeholders were rated as the most critical skills. For example, Feeding Hong Kong
attributed its success during the pandemic to clear, concise, and direct communication with
stakeholders.

17

COVID-19 Crisis Effects on Nonprofits
Due to canceled fundraising events and suspended programs, NPOs face steep revenue
losses that will not be made up during the fiscal year (Maher et al., 2020). In the example of
FEBA, the pandemic created many challenges, including food chain supply disruptions (CAF
America, 2020). The CAF America (2020) survey details the negative effects COVID-19 had on
NPOs, forcing some to suspend their operations. The reasons behind the suspensions include
losing the volunteer base, running out of funds, inability to provide services, and a lack of
technology and infrastructure for remote operations.
The report by CAF America (2020) also provided other examples. Central Oregon Youth
Development, Inc. had to close after funding was redirected to COVID-19 relief efforts. The
Agastya International Foundation in India, a program for children, had to reduce salaries and cut
some positions and programs, and LifeNet International, based in Africa, turned to remote
training of 1,500 frontline healthcare workers (CAF America, 2020). FEBA lost many volunteers
because most were over the age of 65 and at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19, but FEBA
noted some positive effects as well, as more than 90% of its members created meaningful
partnerships. Overall, strategic partnerships enabled effective responses (CAF America, 2020).
The Gap Analysis Framework
A framework to identify gaps hindering an organization’s performance was created by
Clark and Estes (2008). The authors focused on organizational goals along with increasing
knowledge, skills, and motivation. Clark and Estes emphasized that organizations should be goal
driven. The researchers’ framework measures the gap between the new performance goals and
current achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes’s analysis methods are used to close
gaps utilizing the most effective methods. The process model consists of six steps: identifying
18

organizational goals, identifying individual goals, locating performance gaps, determining the
root cause of the gaps, identifying, and implementing knowledge/skill, motivation, and
organizational solutions, and evaluating the results (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Framework Implementation
Clark and Estes (2018) reported that achieving organizational goals requires closing
performance gaps. Their research stresses goal setting in line with supporting organizational
goals. Diagnosing individual and team gaps is key to achieving goals, and the main causes of
gaps are KMO factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes explained that identifying gaps
helps address areas of liability or weakness. In this study, a gap analysis was conducted to
identify gaps in NPOs’ emergency readiness. Performance gaps in KMO influences were
analyzed (Figure 1).

19

Figure 1
KMO Influences Related to NPOs and Disasters and Crises

20

Knowledge and Skills
Clark and Estes (2008) explained employees must know how to achieve their
performance goals. They added that the who, what, when, where, and why behind the knowledge
make a difference in goal achievement. Closing performance gaps rooted in knowledge and skills
requires using job aids, training, and education (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge can be
categorized into four categories: procedural, factual, conceptual, and metacognitive (Krathwohl,
2002). This study examines those four types of knowledge in relation to crisis preparation,
collaborations, training, and protocol. The knowledge and skills to collaborate are key,
considering crisis management have a significant impact and depend on each other (Kiefer &
Montjoy, 2006). The emergency management community has emphasized collaborations for
decades (Grizzle et al., 2020). Disaster response is unpredictable and unstable, making the
knowledge and skills to mobilize quickly critical (Robinson et al., 2013).
Motivation
Clark and Estes (2008) reported that motivation is difficult to measure, but it is central to
goal achievement. Motivation is required to work towards a goal, persist, and devote mental
effort to accomplishing an objective (Clark & Estes, 2008). The solution to motivation gaps
centers on three facets of motivated performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. In
addition, Bandura (1986) outlines four potential influences on self-efficacy that provide a
foundation for motivation: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions, and
physiological feedback. The motivation factors specific to this research are focused on a NPO
leader’s motivation in regard to crisis response and collaborations. The motivation to establish
and invest in partnerships outside of a crisis situation is critical, as partnerships between public
agencies and NPOs bridge the services gap during emergencies (Kapucu, 2007). Thus, NPO
21

leaders must be motivated to practice disaster preparedness (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). Kapucu
(2007) emphasized mobilizing teams of volunteers during disasters.
Organizational Barriers
Ineffective processes or lack of material resources affect success (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The research identified organizational culture also impacts performance improvement. Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2001) define organizational culture through cultural models and settings. In this
study one cultural model and two cultural settings were examined. The focus was on
organizations valuing participation in crisis response efforts, demonstrating a commitment to
crisis response, and cultivating resources for crisis efforts. Organizations must be willing to be
nimble and adapt during a crisis and utilize collaborations between NPOs and public sector
agencies (Kapucu, 2007). This organizational influence can have an impact on the survivability
of the NPO. Kapucu (2007) recommended training of volunteers for future crisis response. The
collapse in emergency response can be linked to preparation phase deficiencies, highlighting the
importance of emergency preparedness (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006).
Evaluating Effectiveness
The final step of Clark and Estes’s (2008) process model is evaluating the effectiveness
of the solutions implemented. The four levels of evaluation are participant reactions, impact
during the program, transfer after the program, and bottom-line contribution to organizational
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). The authors conclude that effective evaluation is a crucial aspect of
all performance improvement efforts. The long-term goal through the evaluation is for NPOs to
effectively network to ensure efficient emergency preparedness and response. Planning and
practicing are critical components of disaster preparedness (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006).

22

Summary
Nolte and Boenigk (2011) report key benefits of networks include better coordination and
integration of services. Maher et al. (2020) found the top strategies to minimize the financial
impact of the pandemic include only spending what is absolutely necessary, hiring freezes, and
applying for federal relief funding. The longer-term approaches focus on developing or
expanding online programing and tapping into endowments (Maher et al., 2020). Two-thirds of
nonprofits surveyed are actively exploring partnership opportunities with other organizations
(CAF America, 2020). The positive effects of the partnerships include new funding
opportunities, developing new services, funding collaborative projects, and helping to sustain the
organization through the pandemic. Kapucu (2006) concluded that partnerships and trust
between public organizations, government agencies, and NPOs are required components of
effective emergency response and recovery.

23

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study’s purpose sought to examine effective approaches for NPOs to excel during a
time of crisis. Crises force many NPOs to shut their doors for good and communities
permanently lose critical NPO services. Chapter Three explains the research design and methods.
The first section states the research questions to guide the study and gives an overview of the
qualitative methodology utilized in the research. Data collection and rationale will also be
discussed. Secondly, the research settings and researcher will be described. Assumptions and
biases will be addressed, along with bias mitigation strategies. Next, the interview procedures
will be explored in the data source segment, including participants, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis. The chapter will then continue with validity and reliability
strategies. The chapter concludes by describing approaches to conducting an ethical study,
limitations, and delimitation.
Research Questions
1. What knowledge influences affect how NPO executive directors prepare for a crisis?
2. What motivation influences affect whether NPO executive directors actively collaborate
with other agencies before and during a crisis?
3. What organizational influences affect how NPO executive directors respond to a crisis?
Overview of Design
The research design for this study is a qualitative methodology, which includes
understanding how participants view their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Interviews
were used to guide the research to understand the meaning participants constructed about
disasters and crises (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The interview protocol (Appendix A) for this
research project includes semi-structured, open-ended questions to yield data with comparability
24

(Patton, 2002). The protocol consists of 15 questions. Table 1 outlines the methodology and
research questions.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Interviews
Document and
artifact analysis
What knowledge influences affect how NPO executive
directors prepare for a crisis?
X X
What motivation influences affect whether NPO
executive directors actively collaborate with other
agencies before and during a crisis?
X X
What organizational influences affect how NPO
executive directors respond to a crisis?
X X

25

Research Setting
The setting for this study is Santa Barbara, California, a coastal city with 91,000 residents
situated 90 miles north of Los Angeles. The field referred to in this research consists of the dozen
NPO executive directors interviewed. Santa Barbara has more NPOs per capita than any other
Southern California county. The community has experienced a series of major disasters and
crises in recent years. These important and relevant factors justify Santa Barbara NPOs being the
study’s sample. Addressing the three research questions requires learning the knowledge and
experience of NPOs experiencing a crisis firsthand. The physical research setting will be
interviews conducted on Zoom due to public-health-related restrictions and safety.
The Researcher
The paradigm of inquiry framing the problem is critical/transformative, which is a
perspective focusing on increasing social justice and engaging culturally diverse groups. The
transformative worldview includes assumptions considering people who are marginalized,
oppressed, or discriminated against (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Creswell and Creswell (2018)
explained a transformative worldview gives a voice to the unheard community members and
improves their lives. I have dedicated my life to helping those without a voice. When I was a
broadcast news reporter, I always searched for those who did not have a publicly heard voice and
gave them airtime. When I transitioned to executive leadership in the nonprofit sector, I
continued pursuing that cause through uplifting marginalized citizens.
I have worked at NPOs for more than a decade, serving the most vulnerable in our
society: from innocent homeless children to at-risk teens and lonely elderly residents. This has
shaped my compassionate and advocacy-based view on the research of NPOs and disasters.
Also, as a single mother with three young children, my family has been personally helped and
26

uplifted by support from NPOs. The clients served at the NPOs I have worked at are racially
diverse. My race is White, and my ethnicity is Hispanic. The critical/transformative paradigm of
inquiry framing the problem can affect participants’ responses through any visible and biased
reaction to responses. I mitigated this by ensuring I stayed neutral and kept bias out of the
conversation or my facial expressions. I also engaged in memo writing during data collection and
analysis to document my reactions and interpretations. Reviewing these memos at a later date
helped identify my biases and assumptions.
Data Sources
This study utilized data from interviews as well as documents and artifacts. Interviews
were conducted via Zoom due to COVID-19 restrictions. The purpose of open-ended questions is
to evoke respondents’ opinions and views (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As Creswell and
Creswell (2018) noted, interviews give the researcher command of the questions and their order.
This is key to understanding the unique dynamics of NPOs’ role during a crisis.
Interviews
Participants were asked the same 15 open-ended questions in semi-structured interviews.
The line of questioning began by eliciting a broad view of NPOs’ role during a crisis. The
participants were scheduled for 1-hour Zoom interviews and the amount of actual interview time
varied based on the breadth of the participant’s responses.
As Merriam and Tisdell (2015) stressed, qualitative research is inductive, and the
interviews or products are packed with descriptions. The participants were purposefully selected
based on my institutional knowledge of the NPO sector in Santa Barbara and to best address the
research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Access to the participants was granted on an
individual basis following an invitation to be part of the study. As Merriam and Tisdell (2015)
27

explained, selecting the unit of analysis through nonprobability sampling is the best practice in
qualitative research. The sampling rationale is based on the evidence that purposeful sampling
yields understanding from a specific sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Recruitment included
email invitations requesting participation. No incentives were offered in exchange for
participation.
Instrumentation
This study utilized a semi-structured interview approach to provide data with
comparability (Patton, 2002). In addition, this approach gave interviewees the flexibility of
answering open-ended questions. The rationale includes Merriam and Tisdell’s (2015)
explanation that interviewing is critical when events and behavior cannot be observed. This is a
key factor when asking participants to recall their experiences during the 2017 Thomas Fire and
2018 debris flow. In consideration of each interviewee’s unique experience, it was important to
have a format that allows for some flexibility. The semi-structured interview provides the
opportunity to tailor the conversation based on the participant’s unique worldview (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015).
The interviews were recorded via the Zoom platform. The interviews began with an
introduction, including the problem of practice and guidance for the discussion. Each participant
was then asked the same 15 open-ended questions corresponding to KMO factors in the study’s
research questions. The line of questioning began with a broad question regarding the role NPOs
have during a crisis. The interviewees were then asked to describe their experience related to
leading an organization through a crisis. After establishing the overall experience, the interview
questions focused on partnerships with other organizations. The focus in this portion of the
interview was opinions and values. Finally, the questions concluded with a focus on
28

interviewees’ recommendations for the NPO sector. The interview ended with an invitation to
contact me if there were any follow-up questions or concerns.
Data Collection Procedures
Qualitative data were collected via interviews. As Merriam and Tisdell (2015) explained,
participants view the world in unique ways and this format helps capture that perspective. The
logistical procedures for data collection consisted of utilizing the Zoom video platform. This was
due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Each interview included the same 15 questions and
ranged from 25 minutes to 71 minutes. All 12 participants agreed to have the interviews recorded
on Zoom for transcription purposes. The rationale for the recording was to ensure the content
was preserved for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The Zoom platform also has a built-in
transcript resource that was utilized in combination with the previously mentioned techniques. In
addition, the interviews were conducted in a private location. I did not anticipate the need for any
translation for the interviews.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data obtained from the participant interviews were analyzed utilizing
NVivo software. The automation of qualitative analysis helps identify connections in data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Following each interview, I open-coded the transcript and ultimately
applied a priori and axial coding after all of the data were gathered. Qualitative data is mostly
inductive and comparative (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I initially identified categories and themes
in the data set to answer the research questions focused on knowledge, motivation, or
organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As Merriam and Tisdell (2015) explained, a unit of data
can range from common words used by participants to a lengthy description of an event. The
units were compared to find commonalities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
29

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research describe measures to ensure a
truthful and high-quality study. This study used adequate engagement in data collection to ensure
data were saturated and new concepts did not emerge as additional data were collected (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2015). As Patton (2015) contended, the researcher plays a significant role in a study’s
credibility due to the potential of biases affecting the findings. This study employed measures to
find alternate explanations that may have changed the outcomes as a quality assurance method
(Patton, 2015). High-quality data and in-depth fieldwork support credibility (Patton, 2015).
Therefore, I used rich, thick descriptions and substantial direct quotes to support the findings’
credibility and transferability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Finally, the participants will review the
findings of this study as a method of analytical triangulation to ensure accuracy and validity
(Patton, 2015).
Document Analysis
Document analysis provides a critical insight and offers a source of ready-made data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The process of identifying documents in this study followed the
guidance set forth by Creswell and Creswell (2018), in which the researcher gathers public or
private documents (Appendix B). This source of data is important because it represents
documents participating stakeholders have given attention to and can be readily accessed
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data Collection Procedures
Participants were asked to provide documents related to their NPO’s crisis response plans
(Appendix B). The request for documents was made at the end of the interview and again in a
follow-up email giving participants a list of potential related documents I would be interested in
30

analyzing. The examples were a collaborative strategic plan, crisis fundraising strategy,
volunteer management procedure, and/or internal policies related to crisis response. The
documents I received from participants included Memorandum of Understandings related to
crisis collaborations, a Multi-Agency Disaster Feeding Plan, a Discretionary Work and
Investments strategic plan, internal memos, and a Crisis Management Plan. All of the documents
provided directly related to the study’s purpose. A qualitative review of the documents was then
conducted.
Data Analysis
Documents were analyzed utilizing NVivo software. I open-coded the documents
(Appendix B) and applied priori and axial coding. Data were categorized according to the types
of documents provided by NPOs. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained, content analysis is a
key method for reviewing documents, as it allows for analyzing unstructured data.
Ethics
Following Patton’s (2015) ethical issues checklist, explaining the purpose with
transparency to participants, not harming participants, and following field standards are key to an
ethical study. As the interview protocol states, interviewees were advised that participation was
voluntary, and they could stop participating at any time. I also explained that their signatures
were not required while reviewing the information sheet for exempt research (Appendix C). The
participants’ confidentiality was maintained. The participants were also informed that the
interview would be recorded, and they had a right to withdraw permission to record. I explained
the recording would be deleted after being utilized for research purposes. The same was true for
the interview transcripts. Finally, no data were gathered prior to institutional review board
approval.
31

Limitations and Delimitations
The deficiencies of a study that cannot be controlled are outlined in the limitations of the
research. The delimitations explain the boundaries the researcher set in the study. Creswell and
Creswell (2018) highlighted the limitations with interviews in qualitative research, including
participants not being equally able to articulate their views and opinions. A second limitation
with the interview approach is the potential for the participant to modify answers because the
researcher is present (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This research had the limitation of interviews
being conducted during a global pandemic and via Zoom. This study has the delimitation of 12
participants due to the belief that 12 interviews would yield saturation. Also, there is a
delimitation of NPOs in Santa Barbara, California because there is sufficient relevant data in that
area. Santa Barbara has one of the highest number of NPOs per capita in the United States and
has experienced several crises in a 5-year time period. The conceptual framework centers the
study’s research questions on knowledge, motivation, and organization. This framework helped
guide the study and set limits on the issues explored during the interviews. The bounds of this
study include factors related to gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, data that fell outside of
the KMO influences realm were not considered.

32

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this research was to evaluate the top methods for NPOs to succeed during
a crisis. This qualitative study’s methodology included long-form interviews and document
analysis. Chapter Four is organized to present the findings aligned with the study’s three research
questions, which focused on KMO influences.
1. What knowledge influences affect how NPO executive directors prepare for a crisis?
2. What motivation influences affect whether NPO executive directors actively collaborate
with other agencies before and during a crisis?
3. What organizational influences affect how NPO executive directors respond to a crisis.
Each research question was addressed by analyzing the interview data, documents, and
validating assumed KMO influences. This chapter highlights the KMO influences related to
NPO crises preparation and response efforts. The threshold in this study is seven participants to
validate an assumed asset. In this section, less than seven participants or 58% will be validated as
an influence gap.
Participants
Twelve NPO leaders were interviewed for this research utilizing the same interview
protocol for each interview. Despite the same 15 questions asked in the same order, interview
lengths varied from 25 minutes to 71 minutes, dependent on the breadth of the participant’s
responses. All participants serve within Santa Barbara County, California. It is an area known for
having a high per capita NPO ratio. In addition, the local community experienced three
devastating disasters and crises in a 4-year period: the largest wildfire in California’s history at
the time, a deadly debris flow, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 2 details their experience
level and interview duration.
33

Table 2
Participants’ Demographics
Participant Experience level Interview duration
in minutes
P1 CEO 71

P2 President and CEO

55

P3 CEO 34

P4 CEO 25

P5 Executive director 39

P6 Executive director

61
P7 President 57

P8 President & CEO

58

P9 President & CEO

53

P10 CEO 59

P11 President 43

P12 Executive director 39

34

Findings
The COVID-19 pandemic crisis response effort called on NPOs to be flexible and
provide services quickly before governments and other institutions had time to react. The
findings of this study align with the literature, as all 12 participants emphasized collaborations as
a critical component when responding to a crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly
highlighted this finding because of the large-scale response required for the long-term sustained
crisis caused by the pandemic. Rittel and Webber (1972) stressed the importance of
collaborations or networks when agencies face complex problems, like a crisis. The participants
in this research asserted that no one agency can respond to crisis effectively, which Grizzle et al.
(2020) explained, calling it impossible to respond alone. Participants agreed that NPOs identify
and fill gaps in services during disasters and crises. Chikoto et al. (2013) highlighted that the
public depends on NPOs for critical services during a crisis. The findings also show the creation
of partnerships and collaborations begins before they are needed. The literature pointed to this
key area several times, including when Grizzle et al. emphasized the difficulty collaborative
efforts face when the agencies have never collaborated prior to the disaster. The trust building
between agencies and leaders is best accomplished in a time of normalcy and calm. Many
participants cited calling other NPO leaders on their cell phones during off-hours when a crisis
occurred to start the collaboration and planning.
This research demonstrates the benefits of collaborations to address the variety of
resources needed to assist families and individuals impacted by a crisis, including food, housing,
jobs, training, and basic needs funding. Nolte and Boenigk (2011) found the collaborations
during a crisis result in a stronger community overall. Considering NPOs have private funding,
they can respond quickly and are flexible in their efforts, which make them assets in a time of
35

crisis. During the analysis phase, the unique virtual approach due to the COVID-19 pandemic to
collaborations and response emerged. Many interviewees expressed learning how to adapt to
clients’ emotional responses without physical presence or touch. In addition, collaboration
meetings were also virtual, highlighting the importance of established trust and partnerships
before a disaster. Analyzing and assessing the external and internal needs are critical in NPO
crisis response. The initial feeling of needs might not be what the assessment shows. The
findings reveal there is value in first looking internally to evaluate if the NPO’s mission is
aligned with the crisis response, being prepared fiscally, assessing the fiscal health to respond,
and whether the community finds there is a need for the organization to respond. Staff members
were significantly impacted during the pandemic, as the lack of college students in town shrunk
the candidate pool. The crisis also created competition for employees. Examining the impacts of
COVID-19 on NPOs highlighted the significant negative impact on volunteerism. Table 3
outlines the assumed KMO influences based on the literature review in Chapter Two.

36

Table 3
Assumed KMO Influences Analyzed
Assumed knowledge
influences
Assumed motivation influences Assumed organization
influences
Procedural
knowledge: NPO
ED knows the
process to train
staff to prepare for
a crisis or disaster.
Three facets of motivated performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008)
Active choice: NPO ED chooses to
participate in collaborations in a time
of crisis.
Persistence: NPO ED follows through
with participating in collaborations
in a time of crisis.
Mental effort: NPO ED persists in
achieving the goal to lead an
organization successfully through
distractions, disasters, and crises.
Cultural model:
Organization highly
values being an active
participant in crisis
response efforts,
including leadership,
staff, volunteers, and the
culture.
Factual (declarative)
knowledge: NPO
ED can explain the
protocol followed
for a crisis or
disaster.

Four potential influences of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1986)
Mastery experiences: NPO ED feels
confident in their ability to create a
collaboration to prepare and respond
to a crisis because of a previous
performance.
Cultural setting and
commitment:
Organization
demonstrates a
commitment to
responding to disasters by
consistently participating
in settings where
meaningful crisis
response efforts occur.
Conceptual
(declarative)
knowledge: NPO
ED knows the
process to create a
collaboration to
prepare for a crisis.
Vicarious Experience: NPO ED will
participate in crisis collaborations
without experience because a
collaborator has successfully
collaborated during a crisis.

Cultural setting and
resources: The
organization cultivates
funding sources,
develops, and utilizes
crises response resources,
training, and processes to
effectively respond to a
disaster.
37

Assumed knowledge
influences
Assumed motivation influences Assumed organization
influences
Metacognitive
knowledge: NPO
ED plans,
monitors,
evaluates, and
adjusts strategies in
crisis preparedness.
Social persuasions: NPO ED
participates in new crisis related
collaborations because of the positive
verbal feedback following previous
collaborations.
Physiological feedback: When faced
with the physiological signs of stress
associated with a crisis, an NPO ED
with high self-efficacy will still
believe they can succeed and will
collaborate with other agencies.

Note. Executive director (ED)

Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What knowledge influences affect how NPO
executive directors prepare for a crisis?” This study focused on exploring the knowledge
influences related to NPOs and crisis preparation and response. Most participants had the
procedural knowledge to train staff to prepare for a crisis and explain the protocol to follow.
Kapucu (2007) recommended training for disasters to avoid the challenges when there is a void
of emergency response infrastructure and training. In this research, some participants had a
greater procedural and factual knowledge base compared to others. Most participants had the
conceptual knowledge to effectively describe the process to collaborate for a crisis. This is
beneficial, as Nolte (2008) found collaboratives lead to positive outcomes in a time of disaster.
Finally, all participants demonstrated metacognitive knowledge to plan, monitor, evaluate, and
adjust strategies in crisis preparedness. This ability to be nimble is critical for NPOs to stay
viable during a crisis (Chikoto et al., 2013). The threshold for validating an asset in this study is
38

at least seven participants. Table 4 details the assumed knowledge influences evaluated for this
research.

Table 4
Validated Knowledge Influences
Assumed knowledge
influences
Evaluation method Asset or gap Validated or partially
validated
Procedural Knowledge:
NPO ED knows the
process to train staff
to prepare for a crisis
or disaster.

Interviews and
document analysis

Gap Validated

Factual (declarative)
Knowledge: NPO ED
can explain the
protocol followed for
a crisis or disaster.

Interviews &
document analysis

Gap Validated

Conceptual (declarative)
Knowledge: NPO ED
knows the process to
create a collaboration
to prepare for a crisis.

Interviews &
document analysis

Asset Validated

Metacognitive
Knowledge: NPO ED
plans, monitors,
evaluates, and adjusts
strategies in crisis
preparedness.
Interviews &
document analysis

Asset Validated

Note. Executive director (ED)

39

Procedural Knowledge
The assumed procedural knowledge influence was that NPO executive directors know the
process to train staff to prepare for a crisis or disaster. Wu and Chang (2018) stated NPOs are
critical in emergency response when a disaster occurs. To be effective, training and preparation
are key (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). While some participants in this study clearly communicated
procedural knowledge of staff training for a crisis, others pointed out there was no method of
preparing for a global pandemic, and overall, there were new training systems developed during
COVID-19 response efforts. Participant 3 explained that training must become second nature:
I have found that through the crises we have been through, training is the key. If people
have the muscle memory and they know what is being asked of them, they can take that
muscle memory and apply it to any crisis that we see.
Another participant felt that when it comes to training staff, it is easier to move current staff
because they understand the organization’s system. “We could say we are shifting to this new
project, and it’s a lot easier to align them to the goals and the expectations,” explained
Participant 2. That helps train staff to be responsive immediately and gives time to hire
additional capacity. The challenge, Participant 2 explained, comes when the organization has to
grow during a crisis and fill positions externally:
It could be good [or] it could be bad, depending on who we bring in. There’s people who,
if we are lucky, we bring in people who have had experience in disaster response and
recovery who have been recommended by other organizations.
During and after training, checklists and following a methodical approach are a way for
leaders to ensure an effective response during a crisis, attested Participant 3: “It really does
simplify things to a point where you can have a trained volunteer from Nebraska that could come
40

to California and actually do the work.” Participants stressed the importance of now
implementing newly developed training methods following the COVID-19 Pandemic.
During the interview, each participant was asked if they know how to train their employees to
prepare for and respond to a disaster. Figure 2 illustrates the number of participants who stated
they did.

Figure 2
Procedural Knowledge: Participant Knows How to Train Employees to Prepare for and
Respond to a Disaster

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Responses
Number of Participants
Yes
No
Somewhat
41

Seven participants somewhat knew the employee training process, while five answered
yes to whether they knew how to train employees to prepare for and respond to a disaster. The
threshold to validate this gap was less than seven or 58% of participants knew the employee
training process.
Table 5 details the quotes from participants regarding their training approach. The quotes
were compiled from interview data.

42

Table 5
Participant Knows the Process to Train Staff to Prepare for a Crisis or Disaster
Participant Description
P1 Each club is required to do specific drills once a month and quarterly. There’s
also in the event of a major catastrophic event they know where they’re
supposed to take their kids to.

P2 Sometimes, you just need manpower, and we hire people to start doing the
jobs. That’s always more difficult because you are really training from A to
Z.

P3 We’ll train anyone who comes through the door that wants to learn.

P4 The Thomas Fire was a key opportunity for us, it was like a little war to
practice your skills on and learn lessons.

P5 We set things up, so that when a disaster or crisis strikes, we can simply
implement more of what we’re already doing so that we can respond
effectively.

P6 Recognizing the exhaustion on the part of leadership and the staff. I worked
very hard to over communicate. When people are stressed, they may need
to hear something several times.

P7 I don’t think there’s a lot of specific crises training that we did for staff,
because I think we’re already in such a basic space of responding people in
crisis.

P8 That’s a great question and probably not as much as we should.

P9 We have a disaster framework, where we incorporated all those lessons
learned, because we were looking for ways to improve training.

P10 There are standard trainings that we’re all part of for that, for the larger
institution that were attached to (trains).

P11 We’re small and so lots of times that’s less needed here than it is for others.

P12 I think it was so different, especially with COVID, everything is ever
changing. I think what we do ask is for flexibility.

43

In further examining procedural knowledge, Participant 1 highlighted staff training
concerns specific to the impact of COVID-19 on staffing shortages across the nonprofit sector:
I would say that’s an area honestly where I would be a little concerned right now, just
because [of] the vast amount of turnover that we’ve had. I don’t think it’s as tight as it
would have been if you turn back the clock, 2 years ago.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of the pandemic, Participant 6 outlined guidelines for staff: “I
referred to them often and was very transparent about them. They were things like we will
communicate as much as possible, and we’ll do our best to keep staff safe.” Along with the
impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2017 Thomas Fire highlighted what the pressure
points would be, explained Participant 4: “We were able to really utilize those to the greatest
extent possible to build our financial support, and then to utilize those funds to really expand our
operations in the community.”
Participant 6 highlighted considering staff exhaustion during a crisis by over-
communicating: “That is not ‘I forgot.’ It’s just I need the reassurance that this isn’t going to
change or the reassurance that leadership is doing the best they can.” This also included
providing a counselor to meet with staff one-on-one and as a group to address the stress and
exhaustion of crisis response.
Factual (Declarative) Knowledge
The factual knowledge influence explored herein was whether NPO executive directors
could explain the protocol followed for a crisis or disaster. Evaluating this influence included
participants describing the protocol they follow during a crisis. The literature argues crisis
response efforts are more effective when plans and protocols are in place. Kiefer and Montjoy
(2006) detailed the response failures during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 due to
44

insufficient preparation. In that case, there was not a protocol to evacuate immobile residents,
and nearly 2,000 people died. In this study, it was apparent that the unique dynamics of
responding to COVID-19 showed NPO leaders’ opportunities to develop new protocols.
Participant 7 explained, “The challenge with COVID was a global pandemic sneaks up on you.
What makes it an emergency is you don’t have a manual or a protocol written.” Participant 2
stated, “We’re big on assessing the needs and not being too fast to jump into what’s going on
until there’s more clarity, there’s a lot of confusion typically at the start.” He explained his
protocol is to take a step back and call some of the key partners and community members to ask
what their expected response is during the time frame to make sure there is no duplication of
efforts or if there’s a potential for a partnership going forward. “A lot of it is structural, [and]
board engagement is number one,” Participant 2 described. He pointed to the launching of funds
and response programs, which are run through the board for approval first. The protocol is
structural and internal initially, followed by the external, including building the MOUs,
partnerships with organizations, school districts, and the county. Per Participant 2,
Once we start developing the projects themselves or the response efforts. It’s really
looking at the key players. From the Thomas Fire forward, we know who we want to
quickly align with. For example, for us, the individual assistance and case management
side. We quickly go to [one specific] agency because we built that trust under the Thomas
Fire.
Training and protocol development are critical in disaster preparation and response. Participant 9
attested to the value of these tools while highlighting a homeless shelter that her organization
awarded funding to for disaster planning following the 2017 Thomas Fire, but before the
COVID-19 Pandemic:
45

They had gone through that process and the executive director there cites that as actually
a tool that was in place that she was able to use. The executive director had to tailor and
adapt to this particular pandemic, but it was more of a roadmap that she's ever had before.
“Our protocols are we never deploy until asked by local authorities,” Participant 3 noted. Once
that request is made, the protocol steps go into motion. “Then, what we do is alert our sheltering
teams, and we tell them this is what we need, this is what we are looking at, here is the
approximate number in the evacuation zone,” elaborated Participant 3. Once that is in place,
Participant 3 said the media is used to let those in need know where the resources are and where
they can get help:
In a disaster, the first few hours, [our organization] is just like a lifeboat. We are just
trying to make sure we can get people into a lifeboat where they can ride out the storm,
and we can start to figure out what the next steps are, but that’s usually the protocol.
Part of the response effort also looks at staffing: “Sometimes we have to quickly hire, or
sometimes we have to quickly reassign tasks to people we have internally, temporarily,”
explained Participant 2.
New approaches and protocol were quicky developed during the pandemic. For example,
Participant 9 described sending out a business continuity plan to stakeholders:
We had sent our first memo out on business continuity, at the end of February, and we
had never done that, before so that I guess is also new. We sent it out, and then we update
it and when the stay at home order when into place. We also formed a funders
collaborative right away and we sent out an email to 10,000 people an email newsletter to
let them know what we're doing. Quickly, we were curating tons taking tons and tons of
resources and information and taking all of that and putting that on our website so that
46

people could access that as well. There was a spot for people who wanted to contribute
something, because there were so many calls late, I have 1000 masks or whatever, so he
said at that and then. To people, so people could upload their needs, I need 100 bars of
soap for our child care facility for emergency workers. You know that kind of thing they
would upload their name, and then there was one just for general funding, so we, that was
a platform for connecting needs quickly to people who needed them.
Internal protocol also transformed during the pandemic for many organizations. Participate 9
explained part of that protocol included meeting and communicating more that she as the leader
was involved with at every level:
It’s an indication that the leadership the organization knows what's going on is involved
in that planning and is supporting the staff because they need to know that but also
externally people in the Community needs to know that that leadership is there as well, so
there's that and then. We ended up holding a few extra board meetings during the year,
and we spent a lot more time in our strategy meetings talking about where we are as an
organization and what we're doing relative to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Participant 9 also described sending more board correspondence during the pandemic to keep
them updated on any changes. Figure 3 details participants’ factual knowledge describing crisis
response protocol. The data were gathered during interviews.

47

Figure 3
Factual and Declarative Knowledge: Participant Can Describe Protocol to Follow During a
Crisis

Six participants were able to describe the protocol they follow during a crisis, five were
somewhat able to describe the protocol, and one did not have set protocols due to the
organization’s small size and structure. The threshold for validating this factual and declarative
knowledge gap was less than seven participants or 58% were able to describe the protocol they
follow during a crisis. Table 6 presents specific quotes gathered during interviews related to the
factual knowledge of explaining protocol during a crisis or disaster.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Responses
Number of Participants
Yes
No
Somewhat
48

Table 6
Participant Can Explain the Protocol Followed for a Crisis or Disaster
Participant Description
P2 We’re big on assessing the needs and not being too fast to jump into what’s
going on until there’s more clarity

P3 Our protocols are we never deploy until asked by local authorities.

P4 How to keep people safe, how to contact trace, how to offer incentives for
vaccination, how to deal with people who weren’t getting vaccinated.

P7 What makes it an emergency is you don’t have a manual or a protocol
written.

P8 In those times of crisis, you either step up, or you don’t. I was so lucky and
grateful to have everyone around me step forward. No one stepped back.
Everyone stepped forward and did their best work, and the protocol evolves
from that. You just figure it out.

P11 Nothing that’s really different from the normal way we do things other than
we’re on Zoom. I don’t think there are any specific protocols that we had to
create.

Conceptual Knowledge
This research explored whether NPO leaders had the conceptual knowledge of creating a
collaboration to respond to a crisis. The literature points to collaborations as one of the most
significant aspects of disaster response efforts (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). In past research, NPOs
reported serving the community more effectively with the assistance of collaborations (Kapucu,
2007). This study’s participants relied heavily on that conceptual knowledge as collaborations
were seen as a major asset in response efforts. “You know it really helps to have the relationships
ahead of time,” explained Participant 5. “If we can have relationships with each other that we’re
49

always utilizing, then, when a disaster hits, it’s like we can do it that much faster it’s
astounding.” Participant 5 also stated,
I think there’s also the issue of our reputation in the community ahead of time. If we are a
trusted agency prior to a disaster, then we’re going to be a lot more effective during a
disaster for the people that were trying to help, but also for all the partners that are
working with us so those two things.
While a successful formula for collaboration includes existing relationships, Participant 6
detailed additional assets:
Have the mindset that you or someone is going to provide coordination and not go it
alone. Have the pre-existing relationships. I think there’s a real creativity to it. Didn’t we
see that during the pandemic? It’s just incredible and in all over, just people really setting
aside the way they’re used to doing business and thinking about how can we do this
differently? Stopping to reflect and learn and quickly iterate forward.
“I call it setting the table,” explained Participant 3. He described meeting with other
organizations to learn what they do and share what his organization does in an approach that
involves more listening than talking in hopes of finding a point of synergy. “When we allow
other agencies to shine and we come in the background, it gives them a better foothold in what
they are doing, and it allows us to be better partners,” Participant 3 explained.
Participant 11 gave insight from the perspective of a funding foundation that provides the
resources for other NPOs: “As a funder knowing what role to play and what role not to play in a
collaborative process and when to when to jump to the backseat is critical for us.” He also
explained the segment of collaborations that fall within funding partners during a crisis:
50

“Like so many other collaboratives and people already know each other and have trust those can
come together pretty quickly.” He cited a collaboration behind a COVID-19 isolated seniors
project as a good example. It was primarily a nonprofit-based collaboration with six or seven
agencies and just as many funders at the table:
In addition to the nonprofit’s being collaborative on the senior outreach, there were
several funders that put in money, and we all met together as funders, so that was really a
good idea anyway, but super important in a pandemic. It simplified communication and
made things move faster.
Throughout the interviews, participants provided critical insights into best practices. A
collaboration task force can be valuable as a guiding body who knows which agencies are
providing specific services, advised Participant 3:
When you look at it from a command-and-control point, it’s important to understand who
is actually [at the disaster] and what it is that they can do. Then you work it backwards.
You know you have a partner for feeding. We are going to make sure that they take care
of that, and the folks that are doing the sheltering don’t jump into the feeding because
that’s not their lane.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, collaborations were created and maintained virtually, with
most partnership meetings on Zoom. Participant 5 explained how her organization participated in
several collaborations, and they each had a formal leader:
I think having a trusted leader is really important. But the processes are generally the
same, which is that you bring in everybody that makes sense, and you all work together,
trying to figure out the solution and who can do it, and then make it happen.
Collaborations can take on many forms and there isn’t one set solution explained Participant 10:
51

On the spectrum, I fall at the organic end of it. I don't do the super structured plan. That's
not my preferred mode. I get that that's a handicap at times, but it's also a real advantage,
a lot of the time, probably often. It's kind of messy, and I’m totally comfortable in that
world. A lot of people aren't. They really want that structured plan. The problem is
sometimes, that structured plan becomes a barrier that keeps it from getting done.
There are also additional considerations when collaborating, including the social and political
process. Participant 10 explained,
If I know there's five key people, I'm going to call 25. Because I want them all to know
what I’m thinking and ask them questions to learn some things, even if I know that
they're not going to be part of that core to get it done.
The benefit of that process is if at a point in time one of those 25 original contacts needs to be
involved, they are already familiar with the initiative.
This research utilized interview data to analyze participants’ factual knowledge through
describing the collaboration creation process. Figure 4 illustrates the findings, showing most
interviewees know the process for creating a collaboration to prepare and respond to a disaster or
crisis (Krathwohl, 2002).

52

Figure 4
Conceptual and Declarative Knowledge: Participant Knows the Process for Creating a
Collaboration to Prepare and Respond to a Crisis

The findings revealed that nine study participants could clearly the process for creating a
collaboration to prepare and respond to a crisis. The remaining three participants somewhat knew
the process for creating a collaboration. The threshold to validate this knowledge asset was 7 or
more participants. Many participants cited recent major disasters and crises in Santa Barbara
County as a leading factor in developing conceptual knowledge in this area. As Participant 2
confirms, it is not only a feeling that he knows how to create a collaboration, but it is now
proven:
I definitely think we do now [know how to create a collaboration]. Thomas Fire was our
test pilot. We were thrown into that response by choice. That whole experience allowed
us to start tweaking, develop systems, [and] process to be prepared for the next disaster,
which came very fast with COVID.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Participant 2’s organization managed nine response
effort programs. These included learning centers to give children in need a place to Zoom for
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Responses
Number of Participants
Yes
No
Somewhat
53

their classes and do homework, childcare response, vaccination equity, individual assistance,
rental assistance, and utility assistance. “In order to develop effective community programs that
will deliver the results that we are seeking as a community, there needs to be collaboration,”
asserts Participant 2. While examining the area of collaborations, a trend emerged on the timing
of starting those partnerships. Participant 3 stressed, “The one thing executive directors should
do is make sure they meet all the players in the field before the disaster happens. The worst time
to pass out your business card is in the middle of a disaster.” The structure of collaborations
depends on the formality of the partnership. Some of the most formal collaborations include an
MOU, deliverables, and regular meetings. Very clear measurables, maximizing resources, and
strong communication are important in collaborations, explained Participant 1: “Everybody
understands what the expectations are for each organization. What you are bringing to the table
and what you are expecting.”
Along with the pandemic, fires and debris flows; Participant 10 also cited the mass
shootings in the Santa Barbara area as significant crises affecting the community and nonprofits.
In 2014, six University of California Santa Barbara students were killed when a 22-year-old
gunman went on a shooting spree through campus area neighborhoods. In 2006, six people were
killed at a U.S. postal facility by a former employee:
The fact that our region has had multiple disasters, you know the most common types, for
us, have been fires, followed closely by mass shootings. Our community has built networks and
tools to respond. The Thomas fire and then subsequent debris flow really jelled a lot of that prior
work that had started. Different people stepped up, new entities were born out of the debris flow.
Two years after the debris flow, nonprofits turned to established networks and
partnerships to respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Participant 10 highlighted there was a
54

remarkable difference in the time it took for entities to respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic,
compared to previous crises. It took much less time for “people to move,” a quick response that
historically has not been easy to accomplish. “I was really glad to see that when COVID-19 hit,
we actually had some entities that were comfortable moving quickly and taking risks,” said
Participant 10. He added the swift nonprofit movement in creating collaborations and responding
is a skill that will benefit the community in future crises.
Metacognitive Knowledge
The metacognitive knowledge influence examined in this study was that NPO executive
directors plan, monitor, evaluate, and adjust strategies in crisis preparedness. Planning,
monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting strategies are critical components of a successful leader in
a time of crisis. Robinson and Murphy (2013) found major disasters can have a large impact on
NPOs. It is important for NPO leaders to be flexible, dynamic, and able to effectively pivot
during a crisis. “The nonprofit sector is the place for innovation and creativity, and never was
that needed more than during the pandemic,” explained Participant 8. This participant further
stated,
We’re in the social service business, so we are the frontline workers, working with the
most vulnerable, who were impacted most directly and most profoundly by the economic
impacts of the pandemic, as well as the social emotional impacts of a pandemic. I believe
that the nonprofit sector really was the life force for so many people. We really had to
creatively figure out ways to meet those families where they were to stabilize them and
keep them going in profound ways.
The COVID-19 Pandemic highlighted the critical role of nonprofits, explained Participant 10:
55

The nonprofit sector is the most trusted sector in our country and in our communities. It's
the one that's most flexible and innovative, I would argue. And it oftentimes also bridges,
the gap between those things that if you want to do something in a for profit,
environment, you have to find a profit model. So, if you can't it's a no go. In the public
sphere, if you can't get the political will you can't do it. So the nonprofit sector fills both
of those gaps and does its own work. I would say, nonprofits we're on the front line most
responsive first you know they really were the first responders.
Participant 9 explained nonprofits’ role during the COVID-19 pandemic was to lessen the burden
of government, facilitate charity and help ensure unmet needs are met, “We found ourselves
playing roles that we did not traditionally play. Even within our own individual missions across
all of the nonprofit organizations.” Participant 11 added that the pandemic was “way outside of
the reach” of what government can do alone and nonprofits had a lot more space to help, and
there was much money to allow nonprofits to step in:
A lot of people really went out of their lane, and some are working to get back in it, but I
think that was a role. It was taking on everything from providing basic needs, providing
food, mental health services, educational support, so typical things in that space, but just
a lot more.
Participant 1 said, “What did you do when COVID hit? What did you do to make yourself
relevant still? That’s part of leadership. That’s part of making that adjusting in the game.” For
some NPO leaders when the COVID-19 Pandemic began, they quickly turned to response
methods developed during Thomas fire and debris flow. Participant 10 described how he led his
team to keep college students enrolled as the curriculum suddenly shifted to an online format:
56

I think there's a lot of different personality types in crisis. I think one thing crisis does is
crystallized for people who they are, and how they respond, you see that quickly. When
crises hit, I’m clear. I don’t panic.
In a matter of days Participant 10 received approval from his Board of Directors and led his team
in creating a COVID-19 funding application for students. Beginning in March 2020, this effort
awarded $2.1 Million dollars to 2335 students to keep them enrolled. “Being at the vanguard of
that, the front end of that, we could do something no one else could do because we could move
quickly,” explained participant 10. Participant 12 described a similar method of adjusting his
strategies during the pandemic, back to effective crisis response during the Thomas fire:
You were seeing across the nation people getting furloughed getting fired. The first
month of the pandemic was hectic in trying to figure out what our goal was and part of it
was a commitment to our staff or students in our community. We also knew that
undocumented immigrants were going to be left out from the social net. It’s happened
before and it was going to happen again. Locally, we had experience with the Thomas
fire where undocumented families did not qualify for any type of financial aid because of
their status.
His organization quickly re-opened a financial assistance fund created during the Thomas fire to
now meet the needs of undocumented immigrants during the COVID-19 Pandemic. “We took it
upon ourselves to find an equity centered response that provided assistance to the most
marginalized,” explained Participant 12. This participant also said, “That was important for us
because we knew that undocumented families were going to struggle. Even now they still don't
qualify for unemployment and some of them are afraid to even try to get any of the state
assistance.” The effort raised $6 million dollars to provide cash assistance to more than 4,500
57

undocumented families during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Many factors forced NPO leaders to re-
evaluate and re-strategize, including taking precautions to avoid transmission COVID-19,
explained Participant 5:
The way that the virus could be transmitted so quickly and easily and the possible lethal
effect of that, I mean that’s what affected us the most. It affected us and how we did our
work or could do our work. It affected our clientele and whether they could make a
living. That was the biggest effect. Everything had to be reorganized to be effective,
without being able to have in-person contact.
It was not only the COVID-19 response that forced Santa Barbara County NPO leaders to
evaluate and adjust, as “The Thomas disaster was a kind of a wakeup call for us to really
improve our game related to disasters,” admitted Participant 4. One significant area highlighted
for adjusting strategy and improvement for Participant 4 was relationship building. Specifically
in the case of the Thomas Fire, it was with law enforcement officials:
So, we didn’t have a great relationship with the sheriff’s department or the office of
emergency management or other people who could make things happen for us. So, during
the Thomas Fire disaster, for instance, we couldn’t get food into the cordoned off area in
Montecito even though people needed food, some people who were sheltering in place
and didn’t have food, because we didn’t have the relationships with the CHP who could
lead us through.
That experience underlined the need to build relationships with other NPOs and key individuals
that would allow his organization to function more effectively during a disaster. Taking
reasonable risks during a crisis can also be an important asset in response efforts.
58

Participant 10 has extensive experience both from the funding foundation perspective and a
larger community foundation. He says a key in a crisis is to remember what you are there to do.
When you have resources, “deploy them in ways that aren't so burdened by old habits and
blockades and barriers,” explains Participant 10. Partnerships that have the know-how and
capacity to move the funding to organizations and individuals during a crisis are also crucial.
Participant 1 explained how adjusting strategies in a time of crisis is key: “The staff
deserves all the credit, they really do. I could come up with all the greatest ideas in the world, but
if you don’t have people to execute it, what are you going to do?” During the pandemic,
Participant 1’s organization went from 115 employees to 12. He had to keep the core staff
onboard to ensure the organization’s future when the pandemic was over: “I got to keep these
core people employed because when we come out of this, I need folks and they will go find other
work because these are really talented people.” Throughout the interviews, participants were
evaluated on their metacognitive knowledge displaying their ability to adjust strategies during a
disaster. Figure 5 illustrates all participants demonstrated metacognitive knowledge.

59

Figure 5
Metacognitive Knowledge: Participant Plans, Monitors, Evaluates, and Adjusts Strategies in
Crisis Preparedness

Several times throughout each interview, participants described situations during the
COVID-19 pandemic or other disasters wherein they displayed self-reflection and self-
responsibility. Participant 1 explained that quitting is not an option when a crisis occurs:
When you’re really heavily involved in and take it seriously, you’re always having to
make adjustments. Always. It’s just ingrained in your DNA; some are more than others.
And, to me, it was always, I don’t want to call it a game, but it was always this is what’s
been thrown in front of us, how we’re going to deal with it? We’re certainly not going to
give up, we’re going to win, you know there’s no way we’re not going to win. We’re not
going to quit, that’s not an option.
The COVID-19 pandemic had significant effects on NPOs. Participant 1 describes what affected
his organization the most: “The uncertainty.” An example is canceling a much-anticipated
carnival for the children at the last minute due to COVID-19 health concerns. “That is an
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Responses
Number of Participants
Yes
No
Somewhat
60

example to me of having to make an adjustment,” said Participant 1. Emotional barriers also had
to be adjusted for during the COVID-19 pandemic, explained Participant 3:
From a physical point, from an emotional point, it was very taxing because we are a
contact organization. We would like to sit down with someone and put a blanket over
them after a house fire. We would like to sit down and talk to them about a recovery plan.
Going from the physical presence to a virtual presence involved strategizing and adjust
Participant 3 expressed, “We all had to roll up our sleeves and figure out a way to continue to do
what we do.” Participant 3 believes those strategies will be critical in future crises.
Knowledge Results Summary
The knowledge findings validated the conceptual knowledge asset of NPO leaders
knowing the process to create a collaboration to prepare for a crisis. Study participants
demonstrated a high level of declarative knowledge when describing the collaboration creation
process. Many participants cited several examples of crisis collaborations they participated in or
created in recent years, to further illustrate their knowledge on the topic. A second asset
validated in the findings includes the metacognitive knowledge utilized in a crisis. All 12
participants clearly communicated examples in a crisis in which they had to quickly plan,
monitor, evaluate, and adjust strategies. Participants highlighted that it’s important for NPO
leaders to be nimble and innovative in crisis response efforts. Participants also stressed the speed
of the response was also crucial.
Two knowledge gaps were validated in the findings. The gap threshold was less than 7 or
58% of the participants not clearly demonstrating knowledge in crisis training and protocol in
their interview responses. To explore participant’s procedural knowledge, they were asked if
they feel they know how to train their employees to prepare for and respond to a crisis. Five out
61

of 12 participants effectively described how they train employees related to a crisis, which fell
below the threshold resulting in a validated gap. Factual knowledge was examined by asking
participants to describe the protocol they have to follow during a crisis. Six participants were
able to demonstrate the factual knowledge, which fell below the threshold of seven participants.
The two identified knowledge gaps are addressed in the chapter five recommendations.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What motivation influences affect whether NPO
executive directors actively collaborate with other agencies before and during a crisis?”
Findings Addressing Motivation Influences
This study analyzed the role of NPOs in collaborations and the motivational influences
affecting their leaders when participating in collaborations. The literature impresses the
importance of collaborations in crisis response, and the top characteristics of these partnerships
are trust, experience, and communication (Nolte & Boenigk, 2011). The value NPOs brought to
the collaborations included “being closer on the ground, knowing the people, having the trust of
the people the services will be delivered to,” explained Participant 2. NPOs also bring expertise
to the table because they have been doing the work before the crisis occurred. Table 7 outlines
the motivation influences explored in this study: active choice, persistence, and mental effort
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Also, four potential self-efficacy influences (Bandura, 1986) are
evaluated: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions, and physiological
feedback. The data was collected through participant interviews and questions probing for
assumed motivation influences.

62

Table 7
Validated Motivation Influences
Assumed motivation influences Evaluation
method
Asset or gap Validated or
partially
validated
Active Choice: NPO ED chooses to
participate in collaborations in a time
of crisis.
Interviews &
document
analysis
Asset Validated

Persistence: NPO ED follows through
with participating in collaborations in a
time of crisis
Interviews &
document
analysis
Asset Validated

Mental effort: NPO ED persists in
achieving the goal to lead an
organization successfully through
distractions and crises.
Interviews &
document
analysis
Asset Validated

Mastery experiences: NPO ED feels
confident in their ability to create a
collaboration to prepare and respond to
a crisis because of a previous
performance.
Interviews &
document
analysis
Asset Validated

Vicarious experience: NPO ED will
participate in crisis collaborations
without experience because a
collaborator has successfully
collaborated during a crisis
Interviews &
document
analysis
Asset Not Validated

Social persuasions: NPO ED participates
in new crisis-related collaborations
because of the positive verbal feedback
following previous collaborations.

Interviews &
document
analysis

Asset Not Validated
Physiological feedback: When faced
with the physiological signs of stress
associated with a crisis, an NPO ED
with high self-efficacy will still believe
they can succeed and will collaborate
with other agencies.
Interviews &
document
analysis

Asset Validated

Note. Executive Director (ED)
63

Active Choice
The motivation influence related to active choice examined here was that NPO executive
directors choose to participate in collaborations in a time of crisis. Throughout the study
participants explained how it was a choice whether their organization would get involved in
crisis response collaborations. This is a critical choice because NPOs fill gaps in services during
response efforts (Simo & Bies, 2007). For example, Participant 6 had her organization mobilize
immediately as a food distribution center, despite being primarily a childcare center. Her
organization traditionally had a monthly food distribution, but she knew it would quickly turn
into a much bigger COVID response effort.
The pandemic was hitting. Everything was shutting down. We started to look at how
many people are going to show up and how do we do this. We very quickly decided that
the only way we could do it safely was as a drive through, which meant we needed to
involve the city to help with traffic control.
She was right, as more than 300 cars full of families in need showed up at that first drive-through
food distribution. Participant 6 credits existing relationships with the city as an important asset to
make the food distribution successful. That specific food distribution became a staple response
effort to get food to families for more than a year. In addition, the food distribution site, which
was the daycare center, was also the hub for the local community to sign up for benefits and
FEMA assistance. For Participant 8, the active choice to participate in a collaboration in a time
of crisis begins well before a response effort is ever needed. She explained that executive leaders
must consistently build meaningful relationships with other agencies:
Having those deep, deep connections with other agencies and entities. As executive
leaders need to have those relationships because we can’t process down. There’s a lot of
64

stuff that comes to us, and so if we don’t have anywhere to go with it, so we need
colleagues, we need our colleagues outside the agency, we also need really strong boards.
We have to build those relationships with other agencies because when a crisis strikes,
you can’t stay in your silo, and if you haven’t already built those relationships of trust,
you’re not going to be able to call on them at a moment’s notice when you really need it.
There are always gaps that need to be filled in any crisis or emergency, and there’s always an
opportunity for NPOs to individually respond or collaborate with other agencies. Participant 2
explained, “Nonprofits play a huge role, especially in Santa Barbara County. We have thousands
of nonprofits. Per capita we are known to have the most nonprofits of a community.”
Persistence
The influence examined in terms of persistence was that NPO executive directors follow
through with participating in collaborations in a time of crisis. In cases like a pandemic or the
largest wildfire recorded, previous specific experience may not exist. Participant 12 explained
the value of continuing to working with organizations with similar missions in different crises.
For his organization an impactful collaboration to provide financial cash assistance to
undocumented immigrants began during the Thomas fire and has continued during the pandemic:
We heard about an undocufund in Sonoma County, and we decided to mimic that
partnership. Now we have a steering committee, and it will be a board soon. We all have
a role that we play to make sure that the undocufund is maintained. I think the most
important part of it all is that we share resources. We share relationships that really help
sustain undocufund whether it's through fundraising or through technical support because
we needed a lot of that during the during the COVID-19 Pandemic response grants. That
makes for a stronger and more fruitful project.
65

Collaborations are key, Participant 9 explained her organization had “a lot of collaborations
going on” locally and nationally during the pandemic. This not only included direct service
nonprofits, but it was also important to collaboration with other funding agencies:
We were part of a league of California Community Foundation's, so there is a group that
works on disaster planning and so we're also sharing information with other Community
foundation's other funders. I have lunch discussion on xyz every single day with
somebody around some topic, so that nobody was reinventing the wheel and there was
lots of support.
Another collaboration example for Participant 9 included getting medical information to farm
workers in hard-to-reach communities during the pandemic. It was an example of acting quickly
and efficiently, rather than reinventing networks.
There were barriers like cultural barriers or language barriers. We could not get the
information where it needed to be, so that people can be cared for and not get the
Coronavirus. But, also when the vaccines came out same thing.
Related experience and education became areas for leaders to lean on in order to persist during
the 2017 Thomas Fire. Participant 2 detailed how he was prepared to build partnerships, bring
people together, and assess needs within his own leadership skills and his team’s abilities: “That
just flourished into what became our response effort.” They may not have been able to be
prepared for such dynamic and once and lifetime disasters and crises, but Participant 2 stated
they were prepared to do their job building community, partnerships, and effective programs to
respond:
There was no playbook for me as far as how to respond to the largest disaster we had ever
seen in Santa Barbara County, but you go back to training. For me, having an MBA and
66

understanding how to build structure, how to build collaborations. That really helped in
that moment. Some of it is practice, and some of it is gut feeling and at that moment
going for it. Making the calls you think would work out best. I made some decision [that]
in hindsight, I say “that’s pretty awesome,” but at that moment I had no clue if it was
going to work out.
Creating a collaboration for a crisis also involves the awareness of knowing whether there is
already an existing similar collaboration Participant 9 emphasized. She explained as a
community foundation, it’s her organization’s work to create collaborations:
The first thing is to really identify who is out there, doing what and has been in the space
for a long time. Where those networks are and where those meetings are in the spaces are,
so you're not pulling very busy people who are already stressed trying to solve problems,
away from where they already are, to a different forum.
When the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020, Participant 9’s organization formed a
funding collaborative with 38 funding members that would go on to serve significant financial
crisis needs. The idea started with a series of phone calls to collaborating agencies before
presenting the suggestion at a foundation roundtable meeting.
When we asked them that first day everyone said, “yes that's a great idea!” But nobody
really knew what that meant. So I ended up in my kitchen one morning very, very early
on a Saturday morning figuring out what I was going to say, now they're all in what is it
that they want from this. I ended up articulating it as an opportunity for information
exchange, so that we're maximizing the resources that are getting to the people who need
in our community. And minimizing the effort, because we needed to all move very
quickly. Over every single week of this last year, we've been collecting the data from
67

those funders tracking in a spreadsheet and distributing it back out to them. Everyone can
see where the others are giving and where the gaps are, if they have any questions about
different organizations that are being funded or not funded they know who to call there's
all people on our staff and we're giving them a resource. That ended up being a
collaboration that I did not know what's going to happen, so I couldn't have said that I
was good at that, until it happened, and then now I can reflect on it and see what we
might do differently.
The past 5 years have been overshadowed by a series of disasters and crises in Santa Barbara
County, giving NPO leaders a new unique set of skills and insight how to prepare and respond to
these dynamic situations. Collaborations during the COVID-19 pandemic developed
spontaneously and rapidly, recalled Participant 7: “They happen quickly. I think if we don’t
move fast enough, the need is gone, and I saw that with COVID. The nonprofits that get
something done have effective established networks that just quietly get things done.”
Mental Effort
Mental effort was evaluated in this study by analyzing participants’ persistence in
achieving the goal to lead their organizations through distractions, disasters, and crises. For many
leaders, this means going to the front lines when a crisis hits, explained Participant 5:
That is our approach, which is that we’re going to step forward and do everything we can.
So, we’re not going to step back, but you know the nature of the services that we provide.
It’s basic needs, its mental health, and things that people need in a crisis. So, our
approach is we have to step forward, we have to lead, we have to do everything we can.
68

Within this study’s participant group, persistence has not only been to lead during the COVID-19
pandemic, but they began crisis response in 2017 through a wildfire and deadly debris flow, as
Participant 8 explained:
I think we have been tested, and we’ve shown strength. When you go through a crisis of
any magnitude, your team gets stronger. You have to and get to know each other in a new
way. I think that happened at a community level in those previous tragedies, which
enabled us to have strength during the pandemic.
The role of NPOs in larger collaborations is critical. For example, Participant 1 said he sees the
schools as the biggest collaborator with his organization. It is a collaboration he said may not be
historically common, but he works hard to ensure it is successful: “Education. That’s where I
think we have a collective responsibility with the school district. It’s a perfect partnership
because when they close, we open.” The collaboration with the school district filled a significant
gap caused by the COVID-19 pandemic”
It’s not our job to teach kids from 7:30 in the morning to 3:00 in the afternoon. If you told
me 2 years ago, “You are going to be running school out of your clubs. All of your clubs
are going to be schools, full day. Your staff will be on the computers and helping them
with any questions.” I would have said, “What? No, that’s what the schools are doing.
We don’t want to replicate what the schools are doing.” Well, we didn’t anticipate this
pandemic.
Persisting in leading an organization successfully during a crisis takes on many angles, noted
Participant 4:
We operate on a different kind of developmental calendar than a lot of nonprofits in that
whenever something really bad is happening, then it’s great news for [our food
69

distribution NPO] in terms of our fundraising in terms of our ability to expand what we
do as an organization.
Participant 9 explained her organization was set up for success before the COVID-19 Pandemic
because they were already working on addressing critical issues related to crisis response due to
the pandemic:.
We have we have unique situation and that we had a strategic plan that was all about
vulnerable populations and making sure they had food, shelter behavioral health and
healthcare issued access to health care. And then also some other issues that are mostly
are working families are challenged with which is childcare workforce development and
workforce housing. And then another part of our organization that focuses on strength
and vitality of the nonprofit sector. That’s what we were working on anyway, and then
the pandemic happened and that's exactly what we needed, we would have needed to
pivot to so we were already where we should have been, and we didn't need to adapt.
Participant 9 explained there was close monitoring through the organization’s governance
structure, which includes the board of directors and a strategy committee. This helped ensure
resources were allocated appropriately and the undertaken activities were appropriately. To track
this information a matrix was developed of initial work versus the pandemic plan.
Participant 2 described the collaboration behind the launch of the learning centers during
the pandemic. The conversation started with school districts across the region. As students
headed back to virtual school on Zoom, over 13,000 students were confirmed to need some type
of support: from computers to internet, to an adult to help them learn, and a physical space to
productively Zoom for class. About 76 organizations were on the subsequent collaboration
meeting via Zoom to develop a plan to help the students who would be in need come the
70

beginning of the school year. Ultimately, 10 centers across the county opened, supporting 700
students. In addition, funding was provided for school districts to purchase computers and
internet hot spots. Participant 2 shared, “At the end of the day, it was great to see that there was
interest in supporting. At a minimum you are sharing the knowledge of an issue.” The awareness
of an issue leads to further resource-sharing in the future. For nonprofit leaders from
organizations that award funding, there is a different approach and reason to lead successfully
during a crisis. Participant 11 stated,
It’s not like leading staff that are program services. It’s more leading the board in terms
of looking at where we can make a difference. Yes, that was important internally, so that
we can play our role well. I think that’s really different. I think the experience of leaders
and organizations that are direct service or have a lot of staff was so much harder than
those of us that are on the investment side, way harder, so very different.
Self-Efficacy. During the interviews, all participants stated they were confident in their
ability to lead an organization during a crisis. Participant 1 illustrated high self-efficacy through
a sports analogy: “I’ve lost way more games than I’ve ever won in my life, some not even close.
But I never ever went into a game thinking there’s no way we’re going to win.” During the
interviews, participants were asked if they feel confident in their ability to lead their organization
during a crisis and to give an example. Their answer and the contents of their example were
analyzed and placed into one of the four self-efficacy categories: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasions, and physiological feedback (Bandura, 1986). Figure 6 details the
self-efficacy influence the participant attributed the confidence to within layered responses in the
interviews.

71

Figure 6
Self-Efficacy Influence on Confidence in Ability to Lead an Organization During a Crisis

Note. Mastery experience (ME); Vicarious experience (VE); Social persuasions (SE);
Physiological Feedback (PF).

More than half of the participants cited mastery experiences as their self-efficacy
influence behind confidence to lead during a crisis. The next highest category was physiological
feedback, which was cited by three participants. These participants referenced feelings during
childhood or other experiences that motivated them to persevere through challenges. Participant
1 looks to his childhood, growing up with very little, and 3 decades of NPO experience to give
him the confidence to lead during a disaster:
I feel very confident in being able to lead during a in crisis. I think it has everything to do
with the way I was raised brought up. It sounds really egotistical; I don’t mean it that
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ME VE SP PE
Number of Participants
Self-efficacy Influence
72

way. But I don’t freak out over when horrible things happen, I sit and think, Okay, how
are we going to survive this, what are we going to do?
Participant 2 expressed that it is definitely important for his organization to “jump in” during a
crisis, “I am of the frame of thought under my specific leadership. It’s always looking at are we
the best to respond at that moment for that specific need? If we are not, can we help bring
together the best resources?”
During the interview, participants were asked if it was important for the organization they
are leading to participate in collaborations. Figure 7 illustrates all participants believe it is.

Figure 7
Participant States It Is Important for the Organization They Are Leading to Participate in
Collaborations in a Time of Crisis

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Response
Number of Participants
Somewhat
No
Yes
73

Participants expressed much support for collaborations during a crisis, “Yes! Period,”
exclaimed Participant 2. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, Participant 2 met with about 10
NPO CEOs to discuss how other agencies were responding and evaluating if they could respond
to together: “The best way to respond is through a partnership, typically, because there are so
many factors especially with the large-scale response like we are seeing with the pandemic,
there’s no one organization that can solve every problem.” The wide range of organizations that
can collaborate include funders, individual assistance-giving agencies, social emotional support
organizations, and housing organizations. Participant 1 said it is very important for the
organization he is leading to participate in collaborations during a time of crisis: “It’s huge, that’s
huge.” He said one of the biggest strengths is dealing with a crisis and being nimble, but also
working with everybody: “We have tremendous collaborations.” As an example of the
importance of collaborations, Participant 1 explained that when COVID-19 impacted the local
community and closed schools, those relationships became critical: “At 5 o’clock in morning,
this is not an exaggeration, we are at the school district offices, and we’re strategizing.”
During the pandemic, a partnership that became very important to Participant 1’s
organization was with the food bank: “What are we going to do to get food to our kids?”
Participant 1 then turned his organization’s centers into food distribution centers every day. Over
the next 3 months, they handed out food to more than 110,000 people:
If we didn’t have that kind of relationship with the food bank, if we had a bad
relationship, they are not going to work with us. But they knew we could deliver because
we’ve done things in the past before.
Participant 1 credits the critical established collaborations with trust. For example, the
relationship building with the food bank began well before the crisis: “Because we had the
74

relationship, we picked up the phone and called them.” Participant 1 stressed the importance of
collaborating with similar organizations, not competing against them: “There’s more than
enough kids to go around.” He pointed out funders like to see the collaborations.
Mastery Experiences
The influence related to mastery experiences examined in this study was that NPO
executive directors feel confident in their ability to create a collaboration to prepare and respond
to a crisis because of a previous performance. Mastery experiences are important in leaders’ high
self-efficacy when leading their organization during a crisis. For NPO leaders in Santa Barbara,
the mastery experiences came quickly, explained Participant 8, with 5 years of nearly constant
crisis response efforts. Participant 8 elaborated that the wildfire and debris flow prepared the
NPOs for the trauma response that came with the COVID-19 pandemic:
Not that we would wish any of those tragedies on any community but coming into the
pandemic, I think our community was predisposed to communication and collaboration in
a way that other parts of California, or even the nation, probably weren’t. They just
weren’t, but we had to build those relationships of trust and fast-moving action, and we
had been tested already.
Participant 2 acknowledged, “I would say yes, I feel confident. But there are always moments
you encounter things you never experienced or prepared for before.” He credits his Master of
Business Administration degree and his “lived experience” being with his organization for 16
years in navigating disasters successfully:
At times, you only know how to respond to certain things after you experienced it. You
made mistakes, you recovered from that, and going forward you keep that in your mind
as how would you react if this happens again.
75

Participant 8 explained, “There’s no rule book, right it’s not like you can plan for that and study
up, and so you have to rely on the instincts and experience.”
As his is an organization on the investment side, Participant 11 felt confident leading it
through the COVID-19 pandemic. He shared two examples to illustrate the confidence in
leadership and creating collaborations during a crisis. During the pandemic, Participant 11
explained how he considered “who are we worried about” and what is being missed: “the idea
that emerged and something that was on my mind was isolated seniors who are having to stay in
because of the risk of COVID, who don’t have family resources to help them out.” This included
reaching out to seniors using door hangers and walking through mobile home parks to reach
people who may be outside of the realm of the normal social services sector and who have
possibly never turned to anyone for help. They found about 1,000 with whom none of the NPOs
had prior relationships. However, those seniors had real needs, including food and access to
healthcare. Participant 11 explained,
We really try to look at the landscape of what the needs were, but also where there was
existing energy and existing funding and trying to really look at where the gaps were and
felt confident articulating to the board, “Here’s our approach. This is why we’re doing
what we’re doing. This is where we should focus our money.”
During the pandemic, Participant 11 also helped guide funding through his organization by
collaborating with another NPO and public health to support needs outside of their funding areas.
In that case, one NPO was the go-between funders and public health. “I think the one with
government is really important, we need to do that more,” explained Participant 11. He
emphasized how important that type of collaboration was during a crisis, especially because the
public health department serves as the keeper of the data:
76

In part because as a funder, if you’re looking at a valuation like is this working, like the
vaccine equity. Ultimately, public health is going to say it worked or it didn’t because
they are the ones responsible for the data, responsible for the outcomes, and ultimately,
we will look to them to see if (the nonprofits) did a good job.
Mastery experiences related to collaborations have been key in developing disaster plans to
quickly implement for future crises. Participant 9 highlighted one “really good” example which
included organizations coming together for food distribution during the Thomas Fire and
subsequent deadly debris flow about a month later:
The food supply was cut off, and so the food bank has a great disaster plan that they
spearheaded with another organization in town. They looked at the different roles of the
various organizations around town and they set up in advance, now using hindsight, to
glean the data. They set up in advance a plan for how they would launch into action if
that happened again and sure enough, it was in place, and they used the plan to respond
immediately and they did a really good job.
Table 8 contains direct quotes from participants when asked if it is important for them to
participate in a collaboration during a time of crisis.

77

Table 8
Participant Feels It Is Important for the Organization They Are Leading to Participate in
Collaborations During a Time of Crisis
Participant Description
P1 Absolutely! It’s about trust. It all boils down to trust.

P2 We’re more successful when we build partnerships, collaborative efforts, for
me that’s part of the successful implementation as well.

P3 The easiest answer is we know we can’t do this alone.

P4 Sure! Absolutely! Our organization is predicated on collaboration with other
organizations that our model is to be the central point.

P5 During a crisis, of course, it’s even more important. Our impact can be far
greater if we are working together.

P6 100% Yes! Please!

P7 Oh yeah, it always is, but especially in a time of a disaster.

P8 I think it’s important to collaborate at all times. If you’re working on an
important community issue you can’t do that alone.

P9 Absolutely, we have to act quickly and efficiently, rather than reinvent those
networks.

P10 Absolutely, it’s the only way to do it right in a relevant way.

P11 Oh yes, absolutely! We did that on a number of levels with funders and the
nonprofits.

P12 There’s trust, accountability, and respect. We’re able to work together and
fulfill our mission collectively.

Participants’ immediate and enthusiastic answers made it clear that collaborations are top
of mind and a priority for them. Participant 6 explained that the coordination piece is often
78

missing in collaborations, but her organization provided that coordination during a large-scale
COVID-19 response food distribution:
That does not have to be hard. In the pandemic, we very quickly got a Zoom account.
Time and getting people on Zoom is not terribly difficult. I think it’s the mindset that we
are willing to be the glue that pulls these different pieces together so that it is coherent.
There’s a mindset that involves recognizing that your organization can’t do it alone and
that your organization has a role in the network of care that’s wrapped around a
community.
Collaborations combine mastery experiences to address a new dynamic situation “because we all
bring our knowledge, expertise, experience to the table, and it really helps to talk through that
and develop a much stronger project and program for our community,” Participant 2 affirmed.
This also avoids duplication of services and community confusion.
Participants emphasized the importance of partnerships. “We have partnerships with 300
plus member agencies and programs that come and get their food from us, so there’s that
partnership, but then there’s also other partnerships with healthcare organizations and
government entities,” explained Participant 4. A COVID-19 example of a collaboration tied into
response efforts is Participant 4’s organization utilizing the unused vans from an afterschool
program, closed due to COVID, for home food distribution. Participant 4 explained,
I think it’s very ad hoc in terms of what’s appropriate to the issue at hand. We really did
not have any significant written MOUs with other organizations, it really was just setting
out in the email what was expected of both parties.
79

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Participant 5 shared the experience of a collaboration
of nine organizations to serve senior citizens who were isolated and needed food and
prescriptions:
We were much more effective because we were working together. We can learn from
each other and figure out what was effective. A part of that was also the funders. The
funders were a part of the work, another set of partners in that project.
An example of the benefits of collaborations is working in a county building during the 2017
Thomas Fire, explained Participant 3:
We didn’t have to get on the phone, we didn’t have to worry about anything. We could
walk down the hall and collaborate with our county partners to make sure we were taking
care of folks during that trying time.
Vicarious Experiences and Social Persuasions
Both of these motivational influences were not directly referenced or implied during this
research.
Physiological Feedback: When Faced With the Physiological Signs of Stress Associated With
a Crisis, an NPO ED With High Self-Efficacy Will Still Believe They Can Succeed And Will
Collaborate
The influence pertaining to physiological feedback examined in this study was that when
faced with the physiological signs of stress associated with a crisis, an NPO executive director
with high self-efficacy will still believe they can succeed and will collaborate. Personal
motivation to help and seeing the assets was essential for some participants. Participant 1
explained he grew up in poverty, and his family relied on welfare. He said that if it were not for
government programs, he would not have been able to go to college, where he met his wife and
80

started his career in the NPO sector. Because of his childhood, Participant 1 said that when a
crisis happens, he first and foremost thinks of the children. He envisions himself as a young
child, one of his organization’s members, who need support:
My job is I don’t want anybody to get hurt, I want to help. I want to make sure we’re here
to help everybody, and we’re a big safety net. The minute something happens my wheels
start spinning right away. It’s like, I don’t want this to come across the wrong way, I love
crisis. If that’s weird. I don’t want anybody to get hurt. but I operate well in crisis. Not
perfect, but I operate well in crisis. That’s because of the ability that I have, and then I try
to instill in our club directors. It’s not an easy skill. It’s to see the assets. When you’re in
it, when you’re in a bad situation, a lot of times you cannot see them. They’re there. It is
this person can help us, that we could we still have this, we still have that, we can make
this work.
Growing up poor, that’s just part of your DNA. It’s like, yeah, I got to figure out
how to survive and legally, of course. For us in the club level, we think about the kids. I
always envision myself as a young child, as one of those members. It’s my job to make
sure that we help the kids that need our services the most. When you have a crisis
happen, the first thing I think is what’s going to happen to kids that need to get to the
club, and the first thing I think about for them is food. Because if schools are closed,
there’s no breakfast and lunch for these kids. They’re on free lunch like I was, so I want
to make sure we get them in our building and get them food. For me, it always comes
back to the kids, always comes back to the basics
81

Along with personal childhood connections to the causes, Participant 7 explained he focused on
his faith and God as the motivation to persists during a disaster: “The confidence is in something
other than me, so I feel like the whole thing is bigger than me.”
Motivation Results Summary
The data demonstrated participants were highly motivated to participate in crisis
collaborations. Six out of eight motivation influences were validated as assets. When asked about
whether they feel confident in their ability to lead an organization during a crisis, a majority, 7
participants, cited mastery experiences as the main reason they feel confident in leading during a
crisis. All participants stated it was important for the organization they are leading to participate
in collaborations. Many participants demonstrated facets of motivated performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008): active choice and persistence, as they chose to participate and follow through with
participating in collaborations. The mental effort of persisting in achieving the goal of leading an
organization successfully through a crisis was also validated. Two of four potential influences of
self-efficacy related to collaborations during a crisis were validated including mastery
experiences and physiological feedback (Bandura, 1986). Participants did not cite vicarious
experiences or social persuasions in their responses related to motivation influences to
collaborate. Due to the series of recent crises in the Santa Barbara area, participants had mastery
experiences in collaborations prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic’s onset. Many participants
highlighted how they utilized the confidence from successfully creating collaborations in
previous crises, to quickly create collaborations during the pandemic.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “What organizational influences affect how NPO
executive directors respond to a crisis?”
82

Findings Addressing Organizational Influences
Overall, NPOs played an important role in the rapid response to a crisis. Kapucu (2006)
examined the swift action by NPOs during the 9/11 response and found it was critical to the
effort. NPOs provide a significant contribution to crisis response and meeting humanitarian
needs (Robinson & Murphy, 2013). Participant 6 explained the organizational assets that guided
the quick reactions: “We have the ability to be flexible and to morph and to use our staff
differently than they were before and to use our finances differently than they were being used
before more easily than government can.” Table 9 outlines the assumed organizational influences
from the literature review.

83

Table 9
Validated Organization Influences
Assumed organization
influences
Evaluation method Asset or gap Validated or partially
validated
Cultural model:
Organization highly
values being an active
participant in crisis
response efforts,
including leadership,
staff, volunteers, and
the culture.

Interviews &
document analysis

Asset Validated

Cultural setting &
commitment:
Organization
demonstrates a
commitment to
responding to
disasters by
consistently
participating in
settings where
meaningful crisis
response efforts
occur.

Interviews &
document analysis

Asset Validated

Cultural setting &
resources: The
organization
cultivates funding
sources, develops,
and utilizes crisis
response resources,
training, and
processes to
effectively respond to
a disaster.
Interviews &
document analysis

Asset Validated

Note. Executive director (ED)

84

The findings were that participants believe it important for NPOs to improve and be
nimble in response to a disaster. Participant 6 attributed organizational improvement to having a
series of disasters and crises over a short time: “For better or for worse, we got better at
[response efforts]. It turned out to be for the better. Nobody planned that those were
organizational skills that we needed and, but we have we have gotten better at them.” Figure 8
illustrates data from interviews regarding how many participants felt the pandemic had an impact
on improving organizational weaknesses.

Figure 8
Participant States the COVID-19 Pandemic Forced their Organization to Improve Any
Weaknesses

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Response
Number of Participants
Somewhat
No
Yes
85

Only three participants answered yes to whether the pandemic forced their organization
to ameliorate a weakness. A majority of the answers fell in the somewhat category. Many of
those responses pointed to not having a highlighted weakness that needed to be improved. Table
10 details those specific improvements in quotes from participant interviews.

Table 10
Type of Organizational Improvement Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
Participant Type Description
P1 Cultural model It’s forced us to look at what we pay and be a
little more competitive.
P2 Cultural setting There were weaknesses or needs because we
hadn’t done anything at this volume, so we had
to grow a lot of what we did.
P3 Cultural setting Not so much weaknesses, but we learned how to
adapt to a virtual environment.
P4 Cultural setting Something like COVID really does force you to
focus what you’re doing, and then to make
tactical and strategic changes to how we’re
operating.
P5 Cultural model Now we are much stronger, because we can work
in person, and we can work remotely with other
people and with each other.
P6 Cultural model It shined a light on the fact that we weren’t all
aligned in our understanding of our mission.
P7 Cultural model I don’t think it was necessarily the exposing of
our weakness, as much as it was just the
affirmation of what we do.
P8 Cultural model We were forced to confront some operational
shortcomings and deal with them creatively.
P9 Cultural model The mental health and wellness of everybody is
really important to sustain a level of high alert.
P10 Cultural model I think we actually work better together as a staff
remotely than we did in person, to be blunt.

86

Some participants pointed out that systems were in place, but not for the volume of need
they experienced. For example, Participant 2 explained the number of transactions tripled. There
was not an issue of replacing: “If there was a weakness, it was because it didn’t exist within our
structure. We just had to create it.” Organizations were also faced with the new dynamic of a
virtual environment and relying on software including Microsoft Teams, explained Participant 3:
A week and a half later, we shut everything down, it was on a Friday, and we didn’t come
back in the office for 16 months. That was the really steep learning curve. We have
volunteers who are in their 60s and 70s, and they struggle with technology. So, we had to
pivot.
His organization had two standing training sessions a week for volunteers and staff who wanted
to learn how to use Microsoft Teams because the software was needed to keep staff and
volunteers connected.
Cultural Model
The cultural model influence examined herein was that the participants’ organizations
highly value being active participants in crisis response efforts, including leadership, staff,
volunteers, and their cultures. Leadership plays a critical role in determining the response efforts
for an NPO in the time of crisis. Participant 3 shared his leadership philosophy which stems from
his 24 years in the U.S. Navy:
You learn how to lead when somebody else’s life is on the line. I think the one thing that
I have learned in this job is, if you can be anything, be nice. If you’re nice and people
understand that even if it is a tough decision, if your heart is in it for them, they are
willing to walk on broken glass. For me as a leader, I have to be the one that is willing to
walk on that broken glass first. If I can’t be the servant leader that is out front, if I can’t
87

be the transformational leader that is showing them the big picture and getting them to
understand the why, I am not going to be very effective.
For many organizations, the organizational response stayed true to the mission during the
COVID-19 pandemic, but increased the number of services, explained Participant 4: “It was a
major undertaking for us as an organization so typically we distribute about 10 million pounds of
food, a year and then this past year we’ve doubled that to 20 million.” The role of NPOs during
the COVID 19 pandemic was that of safety net. P1 emphasized NPOs play a critical role when a
crisis affects the community to make sure basic needs are met:
Safety net. That’s the term I would use for all nonprofits. You know, we’ve been
operating under the premise always and will continue. When times are really tough, that’s
when you find out what you really made of, and that’s when nonprofits either step up big
time or they end up going away, unfortunately. I see our organization as a safety net for
our families. Not only during pandemic times, but certainly during pandemic times.
Those parents that were fortunate enough to still have employment need a place for their
kids to go. They didn’t necessarily have the resources that they normally had, so it was a
double whammy.
The ability to have more flexibility than a government agency, for example, makes nonprofits an
important part of crisis response, explained Participant 2:
We could move a little faster, especially when it’s private money. The key thing to keep
in mind is that it’s one thing to respond, and it’s another thing to respond in alignment
with what federal government [and] local governments do as well. You can’t just respond
to respond because it can create more problems.
88

Participant 2 added that the Thomas Fire response in 2017 was key: “That disaster really helped
us prepare for the pandemic because we were able to move the organization forward over that
period of time and have the ability, the strength, the recourses, the capabilities to quickly
respond.” Participant 1 emphasized an organization is only as strong as its board. Organizations
must have board engagement and constant contact with the members. Participant 8 explained the
importance of leading well because her organization is an anchor in the community. She takes
great responsibility in leading well for her staff, clients, and the broader community. Many
participants credited their staff and leadership team for the successful navigation of the COVID-
19 pandemic. Participant 8 stressed having a strong leadership team prior to a crisis occurring:
I am grateful for my senior management team during this crisis, and it took work to get
the senior management team. This is not the senior management team that I had when I
started 5 and a half years ago. I think the most important thing for an executive leader is
to make sure that you’re surrounded by the most talented, most brilliant, most committed
people and that build a really strong sense of team and communication and trust at an
organization.
She added that staff wellness is also very important:
If your staff is not perpetually taken care of and that is on multiple levels: well paid, good
compensation, good benefits, good staff wellness, organizational culture, also
professional development, and training. If your people don’t have that reservoir, they’re
going to cap out and burn out and leave during a crisis, so you’ve got to have that you
that rejuvenation.
Taking care of the mental health of staff in a crisis is critical, Participant 9 explains.
89

Resiliency is really important in an organization. We had a staff that went into high alert
and that is okay when it's a week, 2 weeks, a month, maybe a little bit longer. But when
it's sustained over this period of time, I think that you have to really pay attention to what
that means for your team for your staff, and for your organization. The mental health and
wellness of everybody is really important to sustain that level of high alert. But now, is
also a critical time of transitioning into recovery and rebuilding. It’s going from quick
quick quick quick hurry up respond quickly rapidly to a much more stable environment
and that transition from one mode of working, modus operandi, and going to a
completely different one is also going to take some work in that transition. Change is
hard, this is all about managing through changing cycles.
Participant 1 detailed the real-time crisis response process starting a call to the board president to
give the proposed plan. In his 3-decade-long NPO career, the trust has been critical, and the
board has agreed with the crisis response:
The first call I make to the board president, saying, “Here’s where we are, and here’s
what we’re going to do.” If the board president says, “I don’t agree with that. I don’t
support that.” I haven’t had that happen ever, thank God. If they did, then it’d be difficult
for me. That would be very hard, like, “Okay, what do I do now?” And I don’t have
board support, but I know we need to do this. Can’t do it against the board’s wishes.
Trust is critical before and during a crisis pointed out Participant 9:
If the trust is not there between the staff and the board, that can place the organization in
a very precarious situation so that in the event of a disaster when everyone needs to be at
their highest level of trust in each other that it's there, because otherwise that will shake
the core. To the relationship between the staff and board, you also have to have the right
90

people in the right spots, because you have to be strong in a disaster. You have to be able
to respond quickly. It's an increased level of intensity. You have to have some good
people with clear direction. It’s the ability to lead them through and instill confidence in
them that they can do the thing that we're asking them to do.
Organizations need to have flexible response efforts. Participant 1 expanded on the role of NPOs
during a crisis as he explained the key to response during the Thomas Fire and Montecito debris
flow: “You have to be nimble; you have a demand for services spike.” Participant 1 shared a
specific example during the Thomas Fire in 2017. A school board representative called him at 7
a.m. with a notice that the schools would be closed starting that day due to the fire:
She goes, “I was wondering what’s the plan for your organization? Do you have any
plans for that?” And I said, “We’re going to open early now.” I said, “We’ll be open at
eight o’clock.” She said, “Really! I can tell parents?” I said, “Absolutely,” and our clubs
were open eight o’clock. But that’s when you have the kind of staff that we have. They
have to be nimble, and we need to be there when our families need us the most.
Some improvements organizations made during the COVID-19 pandemic were unexpected.
Participant 1 said, “A strength that we have now, that I didn’t have before, that we all have,
we’re much better phenomenally better at reading kids’ eyes and be able to tell what they are
feeling.” Participant 2 stressed “stay[ing] true to your mission” in the time of disaster. You have
the emotional side, you are seeing the issue, but going beyond the initial feeling of needs, may
not be what the assessment shows. Be okay with understanding that your organization does not
have to respond. It may be the case that it’s not the best fit.” Participant 2 shared that NPOs
should respond but within their expertise and capabilities: “Be prepared for a disaster to happen.
They are going to happen in the history of our community and of the world.” There may be other
91

entities already providing that support to the extent needed, so new efforts may create confusion
may prevent people from applying to the proper resources.
An area highlighted throughout the research was maintaining and taking care of staff.
Participant 4 explained the lessons learned during the Thomas Fire regarding staff burnout. He
began one-on-one check-ins with staff and introduced initiatives including extra time off, bonus
payments, training around avoiding burnout and self-care. Those working with communications
with the community, operational, food delivery, and programmatic were a high burnout group.
Participant 4 said,
We really developed strategies to enable us to provide much more security and support to
staff members. It was immediately bringing on new staff and volunteers in those key
areas, knowing that we would need them. We hired a number of people; we got a whole
bunch of new volunteers to allow us to build our capacity, and then the other side of it
was to really look at how we supported staff, so we had disaster pay for those who were
in the front line in terms of increased hourly rates.
It is not only staff who play an important role in the time of a crisis or disaster, as
volunteers do as well. The role of volunteers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been
instrumental in helping organizations carry out their mission and respond to the crisis. “It’s huge.
All of my board members are volunteers. They don’t get paid a dime,” explained Participant 1.
Feeding more than 100,000 people during the COVID-19 pandemic was carried out mostly by
volunteers and 12 staff members. “The people putting the food in the bags and handing it out,
those were all volunteers. Whether it was Rotary members, Kiwanis Club members, School
Board, parents, college students, you name it,” recalled Participant 1. He explained the pallets of
92

food would come in at 8 in morning, and by 10, everything was ready to hand out hundreds of
bags of food at each club: “We really had it down to a science,” said Participant 1.
The pandemic had a unique impact on volunteerism according to interview data.
Participant 2 recalled, “In my opinion, it was almost non-existent. Because there was fear for
volunteers, they didn’t want to go out and interact with the population.” This was in contrast to
hundreds of volunteers during the Thomas Fire response effort who helped dig people and homes
out. “They were our lifeblood,” Participant 3 said about how resilient volunteers were during the
COVID-19 pandemic: “The volunteers really did lean in and try to figure out how can we help
someone where we would normally give them a hug and say, “Hey, we are here.” How do we do
it without the physical touch?” Participant 4 elaborated on creating a safe space for volunteers to
contribute during the pandemic. This included large spaces for proper social distancing during
volunteerism.
Filling the crisis response gaps is often innovative and sometimes results in new entities
emerging, some of those primarily volunteer-based. Participant 10 described two new volunteer
response efforts born out of the Thomas fire and debris flow that his organization helped support.
You have your professional first responder public emergency services and then following
that there's still plenty of work to be done. If you don't have the resources through the
public sphere, or they're not mobilized fast enough or appropriately enough. That’s where
the nonprofit the Bucket Brigade came into being, it was basically there to dig out
people's private homes after the debris flow. And then the other response was the
resource network. That was really a group of moms who basically created a blind paywall
sort of a halves and needs list and said, if you need something, let us know and we'll just
go find it for you to deliver to you.
93

The research revealed that funding from disasters and crises supports organizational
growth, better preparation for the next response effort, and capacity enhancement. Participant 4
explained,
COVID is only the latest and greatest example of that the huge importing of support that
we got is allowing us to really make the leap to purchasing or building a new warehouse
that will allow us to expand our services to the community for the next 30 years. My big
mantra is using disasters as opportunity.
Cultural Setting: Commitment: Organization Demonstrates Commitment to Responding to
Disasters by Consistently Participating in Settings Where Meaningful Crisis Response Efforts
Occur
The influence pertaining to cultural setting examined in this study was that organizations
demonstrate commitment to responding to disasters by consistently participating in settings
where meaningful crisis response efforts occur. When considering organizations participating
doing so, Participant 1 explained, “Maybe it’s serendipity when you’re thinking of an idea, and
the other folks are thinking the same idea, and you come together and say we were thinking
about the same thing. Alright let’s do it together.” Participant 1 shared his collaboration
experience during the COVID-19 pandemic trying to develop a plan for underprivileged children
to participate in distance learning, considering many do not have the internet or support
structures for education at home. Ultimately, that collaboration led to the children most in need
attending their distance learning classes from one of the organization’s clubs. Many NPOs
demonstrated their commitment to the COVID-19 response effort by quickly going to the people
in need, explained Participant 6:
94

I think part of that role was gathering and understanding of the community need.
Listening to community members and seeking out what their needs were and that
required keeping a handle on what was happening in terms of government-sponsored
relief, grant opportunities from other nonprofit organizations, churches in town.
Whatever it was sort of knowing all of that, and then figuring out where the gaps were
and doing our best to fill in.
Participant 2 shared that his organization developed a deeper commitment to crisis response
following the 2017 Thomas Fire:
Something we have done a lot but was not part of our history until we launched it under
the Fire was direct assistance to people. Prior to us, it was really Red Cross that did direct
to people (financial) awards.
Participant 11 explained,
A lot of people really went out of their lane, and some are working to get back in it, but I
think that was a role. It was taking on everything from provide basic needs, providing
food, mental health services, educational support. I would encourage nonprofits to really
think about the people they serve and really understand the folks who are really on the
edge or just outside of the system and understand well what those folks need and what’s
going to make them feel comfortable accepting support.
A key during the pandemic was ensuring the voice and the needs of the marginalized were
attended to. Participant 11 explained that everyone was in crisis mode because the pandemic
lasted so long, making it a unique crisis:
We had a whole collaborative around vaccine equity, and so folks who really know
Mixteco populations in North County are really important to say, “This is what this is
95

going to take.” So, I think there is a critical role to be willing to speak for folks that aren’t
normally at the table. I think nonprofits that are close to community can deliver services
really quickly and have trust. Things only move when their bridges of trust already built
in. I think if nonprofits can bring their bridges of trust to those collaboratives, that’s super
helpful because a lot of the other entities won’t have that, so I think that’s a critical piece
of the table.
While some organizations have to discern whether they are the right fit to respond, others have a
direct mission to respond to disasters. Per Participant 3,
We are part of Emergency Function 9 from FEMA, and our job is to make sure that
people have a place to stay, and they are being taken care of as far as food, medical care,
spiritual care, mental care, so that is where we really train our volunteers to make sure we
can do all those things. In a disaster that is really our bread and butter.
Participant 4 shared how his organization was not always about delivery of food to homes:
Our model was always brining a large amount of food to a location, and they get large
numbers of people to come there. But, as you can imagine, during COVID, that’s the
opposite of what you want to do. In terms of bringing a lot of people together, so we had
to very quickly develop our home distribution model to enable us to distribute food to
seniors and other immunocompromised individuals and, in doing that, we were able to
partner with the National Guard significantly.
Cultural Setting and Resources
Pertaining to cultural settings and resources, the assumed influence examined was that
the organizations cultivate funding sources, develop, and utilize crisis response resources,
training, and processes to effectively respond to a disaster. They need to secure a fundraising
96

reputation before a crisis. NPOs can leverage resources due to public funding, which is critical in
a time of crisis, but it is important to have the funders established ahead of time, explained
Participant 7:
We saw significant bump and donations during COVID, when COVID was really
rampant, in spring of 2020. I think it started to settle in that this pandemic was big, and it
was affecting you. I was really surprised by pretty significant gifts from our ongoing
donors. They would say, “Well, you know, I realized things are pretty tough, and it’s got
to be incredibly tough for the homeless right now.” We are the vehicle through which
they choose to give.
Participant 11 pointed out the financial difference during the pandemic compared to the last
recession.
I think early on in this crisis non-profit EDs, many were thinking, “Our budgets are really
going to get impacted,” but that didn’t happen. I think a number of organizations were
able to pivot really quickly and actually fundraise and remain financially viable.
He described the unique funding landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic for NPOs.
I think we’re all blown away by how much money was going from the federal
government to everybody else. I think we were braced to have to do a lot more.” He
recalls how private funding helped NPOs get started early, but many times government
funding eventually came in to support the effort, “But we just kept rolling our funds over
because the financial needs that came our way kept shrinking because the government
money kept flying in.
While funding organizations were prepared to handle a traditional demand, Participant 9
explained the pandemic created a significant need for crisis funding:
97

We knew we did not have the resources to support the level of need that was going to
occur in this pandemic and so we raised money. We set up an arm that was churning
grants and fundraising out at the same time as we were distributing it. That’s all part of
the planning process, putting the pieces in place to make a successful program. But,
without the resources it makes it very hard to serve your clients. If you're in child care or
you're in mental health or whatever your issue area is, if you don't have enough resources
to meet those needs that can be also attribute to you not being successful in it.
Community foundations that facilitate grants and funding from philanthropists to NPOs who are
providing direct services had to pivot approaches as well. Participant 9 explained the different
role her organization played during the COVID-19 Pandemic, a role they had not played before
the pandemic. But a much need role during the pandemic:
One of the ways that we shifted was that we ended up partnering with government in a
whole other way. There was a lot of federal money coming down. The counties and
municipalities were trying to get it out the door as quickly as possible. So where we
would normally either match or work on solving problems from a policy perspective with
government, we ended up becoming a sub grantee to government to facilitate getting
those dollars to the community as quickly as possible.
Another protocol adjustment due to the pandemic was to loosen the restrictions on grant making
and simplifying the application Participant 9 explained:
Those that were trying to get resources and put them out into the community only had a
simple form to fill out. Thankfully, we have been in the business grant making for so long
that we knew we know so many organizations. But, this made us be able to respond more
98

rapidly to community needs. The reporting process, we also have scaled down so that it's
just less onerous for organizations to report on.
Participant 1 pointed out the need to operate well during a crisis and commit to responding to a
disaster to secure funding when another crisis occurs: “That’s also why I really believe that we
do well when times are tough coming out of that [crisis] because people remember that, and they
say you know when things are really bad our organization stepped up.” Participants credited
being financially strong before a crisis as a key to providing critical services during response
efforts. In many cases, their organizations exceeded fundraising goals during the COVID-19
pandemic. Participant 8 expanded on the benefits of fiscal solvency:
We blew out of the water our fundraising goals as last year, which is crazy and in the
midst of a pandemic. But I think that speaks to the quality of the work that folks wanted
to support. But if you have fiscal solvency, you can make decisions from a place of
strength and not a place of crisis.
Participant 12 explained how he thought many foundations would cut funding to his organization
during the pandemic, but a renewed national focus on equity in 2020 helped the financial aspects
of the organization. His organization was ultimately able to give financial assistance to thousands
of undocumented immigrants during the pandemic. Now, the organization is working on
increasing its emergency reserve to more than $500 thousand dollars to help those families in
future crises:
I felt like I saw like a tsunami coming and fortunately, that didn't pan out. But I felt like I
needed to prepare for bigger disaster. I needed to figure out how we can maintain cash
flow and have a reserve. It's not that it was a weakness before, but it's definitely been
strengthened.
99

To get more financially stable, Participant 12 looks to foundations to increase unrestricted
support for capacity building. A trend in the past 20 years is the outsourcing of public
responsibility to the nonprofit sector usually in the form of block grants and contracts,
Participant 10 pointed out:
On one hand that nonprofit can probably do a better job. They're more entrenched in the
communities they're more familiar with the landscapes and peculiarities with their job,
that's great! On the other hand, the governmental impetus for doing that often is simply
fiscal and trying to save money. So, the full cost of that work is not funded and there's a
long-standing set of campaigns in the nonprofit sector to pay the full cost.
Participant 10 added the challenge arises when donors and governments, simultaneously want
organizations to be exceptionally efficient and low cost. They require reporting and analysis, but
don’t fund the organizations for that capacity:
I might say you got one or the other. If you want us to do it fast and cheap you just got to
write the check. Or if you really want a robust analysis and conversation, and a lot of data
tracking, then you must pay for the infrastructure. You can't have it both ways.
This issue is a significant structural and policy challenge for the nonprofit sector. Participant 10
has observed it creates underpaid nonprofit professionals, poverty wages and organizations
culturally not willing to invest in staff because the funding doesn’t support it. Ultimately that can
lead to many problems, including staff burn-out. The success of an organization can also mean
knowing realizing it is not the right fit, explained Participant 2:
Jumping in when you’re not prepared and ready creates more chaos. Not only for the
external part of things because you are creating potential blockage, but internally in
100

trying to figure out how things are going to work and not having the proper resources and
the struggling, could create a bigger issue for the organization.
When a collaboration resulted in Participant 1’s organization serving the highest-need children
during distance learning, one of the collaborators was key in securing funding by pooling
together several funders. Participant 1 recalled, “I said this is what it would cost us, which was
an astronomical amount of money because of COVID.” Fewer children could be served, while
more resources were needed for the project’s success. Through the efforts of the collaboration,
more than 60% of the funding was secured to launch the project. Organizational processes were
an important component. Participant 4 stated,
You have to start with a disaster plan. That is your organization’s way of knowing what
to do at very short notice in this type of situation. But then, how do you put that plan into
practice? People often talk about, you know, in a disaster, you know your plan is kind of
like the first thing that goes out the window in terms of if things have to change on the fly
a great deal. What is more important than the plan is actual the relationships that you
have locally, so if you have excellent relationships across the board, you can pick up the
phone to people who can make things happen for you.
Other NPOs stayed on course with their usual services but quickly adapted to the new COVID-
19 reality. For example, Participant 8 shared her organization was up and running telehealth
appointments within days of the pandemic shutdowns in March 2020: “Very quickly, they
figured out how, across the age span, how to do what we have always done face to face how to
do that over a screen.” They adapted to shorter sessions more frequently because of the virtual
approach. Participant 5 pointed out that the nonprofit financial arena is complicated and that can
greatly affect an NPOs financial health when impacted by a crisis:
101

I know that everybody always says nonprofits should function like businesses, but I’ll tell
you what, having nonprofit finances is way more complicated than a business. Way, way
more complicated. I know my father was a small businessman. I know how a business is
able to function versus a nonprofit. Nonprofit is really, really complicated. Sometimes to
me, it seems impossible, actually.
In a crisis, an organization needs to make itself relevant and react, quickly explained Participant
5:
Donors are fickle when it comes to something like that. When you get donors and they
have to make a decision about who they are going to support during the year, and you’re
that one organization that didn’t do anything during the pandemic, good luck being
relevant.
Participant 2 pointed out the importance of nonprofits being fiscally prepared for a disaster:
The only way to be prepared for that is to have diversity of revenue streams, having
assets allocated for emergencies, and having a fund that helps them sustain over a time
where they may not have revenue. Don’t just move without doing an assessment first.
Participant 2 also credited a strong endowment with having allocated funds for crisis response.
The steps include deciding if the organization is going to respond, and the second consideration
is how much is being drawn from that fund to be prepared to support people, organizations, or
developing infrastructure to respond. There is an emphasis on communicating with the local
government agency’s response efforts to best align NPOs with the federal funding which may
eventually be available. Strong relationships with funders before a crisis are important
Participant 2 pointed out, “You can’t just come out of the blue for the first time and say, hey this
is who we are we are closing, can you fund us, they will say I never even knew you existed.”
102

Crises can have a detrimental effect on the critical fundraising campaigns supporting nonprofits.
For Participant 10, the COVID-19 Pandemic began just as his organizations fiscal year was
ending and typically a considerable amount of the operating budget funds is raised:
We had a major hit to our revenue on our operating side. We were in a strong financial
position, so we could weather it, it wasn't a problem in that sense. But we had to make
some really interesting guesses about what was reasonable revenue expectation in this
moment. We cut $350,000 from our budget.
Participant 10 kept a commitment to his colleagues that jobs or salaries would not be cut in the
process. “I want to keep everybody in their seat, because when you get to the other side of this or
any disaster that's your strongest position if you've got everybody still there,” said Participant 10.
Instead, his team weathered the crisis together and found other ways to cut back on expenses.
Now, the plan is to slowly go back towards the pre-pandemic budget.
Organizational Results Summary
The data validated three main organizational influences in the literature related to crisis
response efforts as assets. The first is the cultural model that an organization highly values being
an active participant in crisis response efforts. This includes all members of the organization
including the ED, board of directors, staff and volunteers valuing being part of crisis response
efforts. Participants stressed how NPOs are the safety net during a crisis and play a critical role.
A validated asset included the cultural setting of organizations demonstrating a commitment to
responding to disasters by consistently participating in settings where meaningful disaster
response efforts occur. Participants pointed to collaboration involvement as a critical
commitment in crisis response. Collaborations during the Thomas fire and debris flow created an
infrastructure and networks for larger collaborations when the COVID-19 Pandemic began in
103

2020. Participants said they returned to some of the previous collaboration partners in order to
quickly respond and meet the needs of the community. The final organizational influence
validated as an asset in this study was a cultural setting focused on resources. Participants
emphasized the dire need for funding during a crisis and the importance of establishing stable
funder relationships well before a crisis. Training and processes to effectively respond to crises
are also critical for organizations. Participants explained they will use the lessons learned from
previous crises and the COVID-19 pandemic to develop training resources to improve crisis
response efforts for NPOs in the future.
Participant 9 gave advice regarding how nonprofits can improve crisis response efforts starting
with the COVID-19 pandemic:
Right now, while we're still in it. It’s sort of evolving to a recovery rebuilding phase that
we need to document the lessons learned from this one. And begin to, if there is not
already, a disaster plan for that particular issue area that that nonprofit covers or for their
own organization, then I would suggest assimilating those lessons learned into a formal
document that can be used so that next time they're ready. Individual disaster plans for
individual organizations are really important. That covers everything from a
communication’s plan to information technology to understanding what will happen, if
the power goes out, if the roads go out, you know how you need to function. There’s a lot
of that business continuity planning that should happen. Again, now it should happen
with the input from this pandemic and the knowledge that we glean from this previous
disaster.
The COVID-19 Pandemic has been a unique opportunity for organizations to develop training
material and resources that will likely serve many future generations.
104

Summary
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis theoretical framework was used in this study to
evaluate 14 assumed KMO influences for NPO leaders in the context of crisis preparation and
response. The threshold to validate assets in this research is seven or more participants. The
findings validated 12 influences as gaps or assets. This research highlights the value of
increasing procedural, factual, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge among NPO executive
directors. Collectively, participants demonstrated knowledge in these influence areas, but there is
room for improving knowledge influences to best prepare and respond to disasters and crises.
The evidence from this study shows there is a relationship between high self-efficacy and NPO
leaders participating in collaborations. The literature has reiterated the effectiveness of
collaborations in crisis response efforts. Participants displayed high self-efficacy, which
positively impacted crisis response outcomes and can be a model for NPO leaders to follow. The
findings of this study validated the three facets of motivated performance: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). The findings also validated self-efficacy
potential influences: mastery experiences and physiological feedback (Bandura, 1986). One
organizational cultural model and two organizational cultural settings influences were also
validated. The findings in this chapter guide the recommendations presented in Chapter Five
focused on institutional infrastructure, established collaborations, and established funding
sources. The New World Kirkpatrick Model will then inform an integrated implementation and
evaluation to NPOs in preparing for and responding to a crisis or disaster.

105

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand the best practices for NPOs to thrive during a
crisis. This research included interviews with 12 NPO leaders from Santa Barbara, California, an
area affected by three major disasters and crises in the past 5 years. Three research questions
guided this project.
1. What knowledge influences affect how NPO Executive Directors prepare for a crisis?
2. What motivation influences affect whether NPO Executive Directors actively collaborate
with other agencies before and during a crisis?
3. What organizational influences affect how NPO Executive Directors respond to a crisis?
The qualitative methodology included participant semi-structured interviews and document analysis.
The research design includes understanding how NPO leaders view their experiences preparing
and responding to disasters and crises (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Clark and Estes’s gap analysis
framework was used to identify KMO gaps in emergency readiness (Clark and Estes, 2008). The
threshold for validation of assets was seven participants. The findings presented in chapter four
validated 12 influences as gaps or assets affecting how effectively NPO leaders prepare and
respond to a crisis. This chapter discusses the findings and outlines three recommendations for
NPO leaders. Following the recommendations, an integrated implementation and evaluation plan
based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is presented.
Findings
Knowledge Influences to Plan
The findings of this study validated procedural, factual, conceptual, and metacognitive
knowledge influences in the context of how NPO executive directors prepare for and respond to
a crisis. The assumed knowledge influences were applied included training, protocol,
106

collaborations and adjusting strategies. Participants demonstrated substantial conceptual
knowledge of the process to create a collaboration to prepare for a crisis. The data shows 75% of
participants knew the process and 25% somewhat knew the process. The literature cites the
critical importance of crisis response collaborations in a majority of the related studies (Grizzle
et al., 2020; Kapucu, 2007; Maher et al., 2020; Nolte, 2018; Nolte & Boenigk, 2011; Simo, 2009;
Rittle & Webber, 1973). Metacognitive knowledge evaluation revealed all participants plan,
monitor, evaluate, and adjust strategies.
However, the participants demonstrated factual knowledge gaps in the context of
explaining the protocol followed with less than the threshold of seven participants describing the
protocol. This finding is in line with the literature which highlights the lack of sufficient
protocols in relation to crisis response (Kiefer & Montjoy, 2006). A second gap was revealed
during the analysis of procedural knowledge in relation to training employees. The data
demonstrated 40% of the participants knew how to train employees in this context and 60%
somewhat demonstrated this procedural knowledge. Kiefer and Montjoy (2006) noted training
ensures effective preparation for a crisis.
Motivation Influences to Collaborate
The findings demonstrate significant motivation influences in relation to participants
taking part in collaborations. The threshold to validate an asset in this study was seven or more
participants or 58% of the participants. The data validated the influence of the three facets of
motivated performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Throughout the interviews, a majority of the participants cited examples of choosing and
following through with participating in collaborations. When asked if they felt doing so was
important, all participants did. The data aligns with the literature on NPOs and crisis response,
107

which consistently points to collaborations as a necessity (Grizzle et al., 2020; Kapucu, 2007;
Maher et al., 2020; Nolte, 2018; Nolte & Boenigk, 2011; Simo, 2009; Rittle & Webber, 1973).
The findings of this study also validated two of Bandura’s (1986) theory of self-efficacy
potential influences: mastery experiences and physiological feedback. The data in this research
showed mastery experiences were the primary reason NPO leaders felt confident. In the
interviews, it was evident the high self-efficacy gained from mastery experiences also influenced
NPO leaders to create collaborations. Overall, NPOs’ involvement in collaborations is critical
(Kaltenbrunner & Renzl, 2019). Grizzle et al. (2020) specifically cited NPOs and collaborations
being a required component of the COVID-19 response effort. The self-efficacy influence of
physiological feedback on a NPO leader believing they can succeed and collaborate was cited by
several participants in this study. One participant referenced his childhood as the motivation to
succeed and overcome challenges.
Organizational Influences to Respond
The data validated assumed organization influences of cultural models and cultural
settings. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) explained cultural models are an organization’s
invisible set of values. In the context of this study, all participants demonstrated their
organization highly valued being an active participant in crisis response efforts. Prior research
found that NPOs must be part of response efforts, especially when there are gaps left by failures
at the government agency level (Simo & Bies, 2007). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) describe
cultural settings as the times people will participate in an activity that achieves something they
value. Participants consistently shared examples of participating in settings where meaningful
crisis response efforts occur. These occasions occur internally with associates, volunteers, and
organizational leaders. They are also external in the crisis response collaboratives. Bryson et al.
108

(2006) argued some positive outcomes cannot be achieve alone in a crisis and collaborations are
necessary. Finally, the findings in this study revealed the cultivating resources to effectively
respond to a crisis. This includes developing funding sources, training, and processes. Simo and
Bies (2007) stressed funding as required to support collaborations and organizations.
Recommendations for Practice
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the critical need for NPOs to be prepared for
sustained crises. The better prepared NPOs are beforehand, the better they can serve those most
affected. This research revealed the need for additional institutional infrastructure focused on
crisis preparation and response, refining collaboration creation and participation, and a priority
placed on establishing reliable funding sources. The following three recommendations reinforce
or address gaps in KMO influences examined in this study.
Recommendation 1
The first recommendation is to cultivate human capital and institutional infrastructure
focused on crisis preparation and response through training and protocol development. Maher et
al. (2020) argue there has never been a more important time for NPOs to provide services during
the COVID-19 Pandemic, therefor is important NPOs are prepared for a crisis. Forty percent of
participants demonstrated the procedural knowledge of training staff to prepare for a crisis at a
high level. Fifty percent of interviewees indicated they had the factual knowledge to explain the
protocol followed for a crisis or disaster. That low percentage highlights a knowledge gap that
can be closed through training and developing protocols. Social services NPOs are society’s
safety net. Kaltenbrunner and Renzl (2019) point to training as a key factor for NPOs to
effectively prepare for a disaster. NPOs are most needed during a time of crisis, when the already
unstable community members become even more vulnerable. Simo (2009) cite past crises as
109

illustrating the important role NPOs have in crisis response. But responding to a crisis is not a
one-off event. Chikoto et al. (2013) contend the challenging organizational work to prepare for a
crisis can be supported by 10 preparedness activities outlined in their research, including training
workshops. Crisis response needs to be ingrained in every facet of the organization daily. The
environment, the tools and the human capital are key.
Board of Directors Engagement and Support
Members of an NPO’s board of directors need to have a mindset of crisis preparation and
response. In many cases, members work in sectors outside of the NPOs. Effective and routine
training can address deficiencies in understanding the training and protocol to prepare for crisis
response, which is also an area that can be of focus when recruiting new board members. Since
board members are volunteers, a commitment to crises preparation and response is critical.
Board members must have the proper understanding and quick-thinking skills to effectively
support NPOs when a crisis occurs. The Board of Directors must also take into consideration
crisis response experiencing when filling leadership roles within the organization.
Leadership Valuing Crisis Response Participation
Leaders at NPOs can be the difference between a slow crisis response and quick action at
a moment’s notice. It’s a variable that can save weeks or months of strategy development. The
development of crisis training materials and protocols occur at the leadership level. In addition,
the implementation of the tools and job aids falls on the shoulders of NPO leadership. In
addition, NPO leaders need to undertake high level training to best meet the dynamic needs of
navigating an organization through a crisis. NPO leaders can set the tone of crisis preparation
and response for an organization, its staff, and volunteers.

110

Staff and Volunteers Trained and Prepared for a Crisis
The cultivation and recruitment of staff needs to have the mindset of preparing for
responding to a crisis. It is a matter of when not if a crisis occurs. That mindset needs to be in the
foreground, not an afterthought, of onboarding and ongoing staff and volunteer training.
Recruitment with a focus on candidates with crisis experience is key. They will have the tools
and training to respond at a high level to help those in need. This study highlighted the need for
consistent and thorough staff and volunteer training in crisis response. The lessons learned
during the COVID-19 pandemic provide a rich experience to draw training guides and protocols
for organizations lacking those resources. Kiefer and Montjoy (2006) stressed the importance of
training and practicing to prepare for a crisis. Protocols related to COVID-19 may include
working from home and remote capabilities. Acting quickly is important during a crisis and
having a plan already in place that just needs to be activated is crucial.
An Environment and Culture That Supports Crisis Response
Overall, the organization must emphasize preparing for crisis response. This commitment
needs to be reinforced from the top down to have the greatest impact. The culture of the
organization can be supported through consistent training and support systems. Table 11 outlines
specific recommendations to address the knowledge influence gaps identified in this study.

111

Table 11
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Procedural Knowledge Training: Demonstration, Guided Practice, and Feedback
The findings of this research demonstrate a need for training. The findings indicate
training needs to take place at all levels within the organization. The benefits of training are high
impact learning (Clark & Estes, 2008). When closing a knowledge gap, training is an ideal
method of gaining new skills, practicing the concepts, and learning from corrective feedback
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Training is critical due to the higher-level knowledge required in crisis
Assumed influence Knowledge type Gap
validated
Recommendation
NPO ED knows the
process to train staff to
prepare for a crisis or
disaster.

Procedural

Y Training: demonstration, guided
practice, and feedback related
to NPO crisis preparation and
response for board, leadership,
staff, and volunteers.

Education surrounding NPO
crisis preparation and response
using case studies for board,
leadership, staff, and
volunteers.

A crisis response manual job aid
outlining crisis response
procedures and information.

NPO ED can explain the
protocol followed for a
crisis or disaster.

Factual

Y

Training at the leadership level in
developing protocols for a
crisis or disaster.

Education utilizing well
established crisis response
organization’s protocol
development and
implementation
112

response efforts. As Clark and Estes, (2008) explained, the training needs to include specific
sequenced procedures in how to effectively respond to disasters or crisis. Chikoto et al. (2013)
argue only the NPOs properly prepared for a crisis will effectively participate in response efforts.
Finally, demonstration of crisis related procedures need to be given, along with opportunities for
trainees to practice the skills and receive corrective feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Education Surrounding NPO Crisis Preparation and Response
The findings in this study did not indicate an extensive or intentional focus on education
in crisis response. Clark and Estes (2008) pointed to education as an asset to effectively address
unexpected challenges. Each challenge is a unique and dynamic situation. Utilizing case studies
from around the world to better understand a wide array of crisis response efforts better equips
the board, leadership, staff, and volunteers. Education is an effective knowledge solution for the
unanticipated problems associated with a crisis (Clark & Estes, 2008). Due to the ever-changing
nature of response efforts, it is important education for the entire organization is continuous and
routine.
Crisis Response Manual Job Aid
The findings demonstrated a need for job aids to assist in training for the entire
organization. Since each crisis is unique, job aids fill the gaps when there is not enough related
experience (Clark & Estes, 2008). This recommendation would include a thorough manual
outlining response procedures and information for a series of types of disasters and crises. The
manual needs to include information relevant to the role in the organization. For example, a
board member could receive a version of the crisis response manual specific for their role that is
different than a front-line staff member directly administering humanitarian aid. The manual
113

would need to include a quick reference guide as well as in-depth procedures to support the
effective response to a crisis.
Factual Knowledge Training: Crisis Protocol Development
The data revealed many organizations do not have crisis specific protocols documented
and implemented. This recommendation calls for leadership to be trained in developing relevant
protocols. Leaders at NPOs have gained a much knowledge following the COVID-19 pandemic.
That insight can be combined with training in creating protocols to follow. Training is an
effective knowledge solution with new goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Experts can be used to guide
the training with a goal of developing protocols. The new protocols will then need to be updated
on an annual basis to ensure they are following current best practices.
Education Utilizing Well Established Crisis Response Protocol
Large NPOs whose mission is directly aligned with crisis response are a good asset to
provide education in protocol development and implementation. Many of these referenced NPOs
would have well-established protocols. Organizations can benefit from this education because it
is focused on solving a novel situation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Education is a long-term
investment in crisis preparation and response (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation is to refine collaboration creation and participation before a
crisis. A seminal paper stressed the importance of collaborations when communities face
complex problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Kapucu (2006) emphasize effective crisis response
requires collaborations. Robinson and Murphy (2013) describe collaborations as a main concern
for NPOs during a crisis. In this study, all participants stated it is important for the organizations
they lead to participate in collaborations during a crisis. This data affirmed the literature’s
114

assertions that collaborations are paramount. While the findings in this study show this area as a
strength for participants, bolstering the collaboration creation and participation process will
further enhance the partnerships. Bryson et al. (2006) stress the critical value of collaborations to
achieve what one organization cannot achieve alone and call existing relationships an important
aspect of collaborations. Building trust ahead of time is critical, as a crisis is not the time to meet
for the first time. It is the time to quickly collaborate and deploy a response plan. That trust can
lead to NPO leaders communicating to create a response plan, whether formal or informal.
Strong collaborations before a crisis promote resource sharing, including cost and human capital.
It also leads to innovative ideas through informal and formal meetings as the crisis is unfolding.
Simo and Bies (2007) emphasized failing to prepare for a crisis utilizing collaborations can lead
to negative results. Established collaborations in place prior to a crisis are a tremendous asset in
crisis response efforts. Table 12 outlines specific recommendations to reinforce and refine
motivation influences identified in this study.

Table 12
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Assumed influence Motivation type Priority Recommendation
NPO ED chooses to
participate in
collaborations in a time
of crisis.

Active choice

Y Remove perceived organizational
barriers to achievement.
NPO ED follows through
with participating in
collaborations in a time
of crisis.
Persistence

Y Team confidence building
through consistent
collaborations.

115

Remove Perceived Organizational Barriers to Achievement
The findings in this study demonstrate a positive relationship between active choice and
NPO leaders choosing to participate in collaborations in a time of crisis. To support that positive
trend and encourage growth within these collaborations, perceived organizational barriers need
to be removed (Clark & Estes, 2008). A barrier highlighted in this study was funding. The data
show participants have the motivation to collaborate in a time of crisis, but the funding of
collaborative projects is critical for goal achievement. This can be addressed by including
investment foundations in the collaborative to help guide the project scope and focus. Nolte and
Boenigk (2011) contend the collaborations will ultimately strengthen the community. In
addition, long-term collaborations can develop proven research-based results and outcomes to
secure funding for future initiatives.
Team Confidence Building Through Consistent Collaborations
The findings of this study show a high level of motivation through active choice and
persistence. This recommendation is to enhance and encourage sustained motivation long-term.
NPO collaborations in crisis response efforts function like teams. It is critical all team members
believe in each other to achieve goals (Bandura, 1997). Team building is best achieved by
meeting short-term, challenging goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). If collaboratives stay active
pursuing new goals together during times without a crisis, they are better prepared to respond
productively when a crisis does occur cohesively. The key is achieving smaller and authentic
goals together. This can include taking on a community need during times of calm. It can also
mean continuing the crisis preparation collaboration meaningfully during periods without a
crisis.

116

Recommendation 3
The third recommendation is to establish reliable funding sources before a crisis. In this
research, all participants demonstrated their organization highly valued being an active
participant in disaster response efforts. Response efforts require significant resources. The main
resource affecting these efforts cited by participants was funding. It is imperative that NPOs
cultivate reliable funding sources well before they are needed. Thus, an organization may only
need to make a call or send an email to an established funder to secure crisis response funding
for immediate use. Having relationships in place and trust built with funders is invaluable.
Kapucu (2007) highlighted the significant amount of funds raised during a crisis and the need for
the critical funding for food, clothing and shelter. Funders need to already trust an organization’s
work and know that the agency has the capacity and capability to respond quickly and
effectively. Relevance is a key component in attracting and maintaining funding sources. An
organization may need to focus on alternative but critically needed services like food
distribution. Donors will recognize the organizations that were nimble and adjusted to
uncertainty. Those will be the organizations that will receive funding when another emergency
situation occurs. Maher et al. point out some organizations are doing financially better during the
pandemic after lessons learned in the 2008 recession.
Also, program metrics and outcomes must be in place from past grants and funding.
Funders need to know an organization has proven research-based approaches and results. A
record of accomplishing the project’s purpose and utilizing the funding is also influential.
Executive directors can cultivate funders through site visits, meetings with NPO clients, and
sharing past successes. Finally, being fiscally prepared is necessary. This includes having an
117

emergency fund allocation through a fiscal plan for disasters. Table 13 outlines the cultural
setting recommendation to support established funding sources.

Table 13
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Assumed influence

Organization
influence type
Priority Recommendation
The organization
cultivates funding
sources, develops, and
utilizes crisis response
resources, training, and
processes to effectively
respond to a disaster.
Cultural Setting

Y Invest in resources to adequately
track grant metrics and
outcomes

Create processes to intentionally
develop funding sources to rely
on in a time of crisis.
118

Invest in Resources to Adequately Track Grant Metrics and Outcomes
The findings in this study attributed crises funding awards to the organization’s
reputation and dependability to achieve outcomes during non-crisis times. A resource in tracking
outcomes is the high-quality case management software and systems that generate metrics to
illustrate an initiative’s success. As Clark and Estes (2008) explained, information technology is
an important support for knowledge work. The consistent investment in the software and
dedication to the organizational capacity to document, input, and track the data is critical.
Participants explained the process of requesting funding was expedited down to a phone call or
an email. An organization’s record of proven results is the supporting factor in receiving critical
funding during a crisis or disaster.
Create Processes to Intentionally Develop Funding Sources
Usually, NPOs will create fundraising and development plans and projects for a normal
year. This process needs to be expanded to consider the high likelihood of fundraising in a time
of crisis to develop a reputation of dependability and result achievement with funders. Clark and
Estes (2008) stated that achieving these goals depends on a successfully operating system of
processes. As stated in the resource’s recommendation above, organizations need to track metrics
to illustrate the ability to achieve outcomes. Processes need to be created, if they do not already
exist, to outline how the outcomes are documented and tracked as well as the metrics generated.
This begins with data from the client, continued tracking of that client to document outcome-
specific metrics, and reliable input of those metrics into comprehensive case management
software. The processes need to align with the goal of utilizing metrics to verify outcomes and
illustrate dependability on executing initiatives to funders (Clark & Estes, 2018).

119

Integrated Recommendations
This implementation and evaluation plan’s design is grounded in the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, which consists of four levels of training evaluation developed in 1954 by
Donald Kirkpatrick (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The updated technique inverts the
decades-old approach during the planning phase. It guides trainers to consider specific results
first, instead of last. Effective and improved training is essential for NPOs to prepare for and
respond to a crisis. Training is a commodity, and evaluating it gives an organization and its
stakeholders invaluable information. To follow the Kirkpatrick implementation and evaluation
framework, a trainer must initially consider the well-known evaluation elements in reverse:
results, behavior, learning, and reaction. This approach highlights results to ensure the end result
demonstrates improved employee performance by training participants.
Level 4, results, shows the outcomes have been achieved through the training. Level 3,
behavior, identifies the extent to which training is used on the job. Required drivers provide
continuous systems and processes to support the participant beyond the training session. Level 2,
learning, assesses the extent to which transfer of knowledge to participants took place. This
includes confidence, attitude, commitment, and skills. Level 1, reaction, highlights the
importance of engagement and favorable impression of the training. When executed properly,
Levels 3 and 4 demonstrate training effectiveness. The first two levels will highlight effective
training. Together, the four levels give an organization a wealth of knowledge to improve and
assess stakeholder accountability measurements.
The Kirkpatrick implementation and evaluation framework creates an accountability
structure highlighting results to key organizational stakeholders. Pre- and post-evaluations gather
critical data to illustrate training effectiveness and value. By demonstrating quality
120

organizational outcomes through training, accountability to stakeholders is better achieved for
return on expectation. In addition, transparency improves when organizations can effectively
showcase improved performance.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 14 details external and internal outcomes that will be measured to evaluate whether
NPO staff and volunteers are achieving the individual and organizational goals.

121

Table 14
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External outcomes
Increase in hiring staff trained in
crisis response
The number of qualified
new hires
HR hiring statistics
Increase grant funding related to
crisis response
Funding awards Grant reports and financial
comparisons year over
year
Increase in participation in crisis
collaborations
The number of
collaborations as an
active participant
MOUs and informal
agreement tracking
Increase long-term collaboration
participation in non-crisis times
The length of
collaborations as an
active participant
MOUs and informal
agreement tracking
Team confidence building with
community partners
Number of short-term,
smaller goals met by
the collaborative
Quarterly reports detailing
authentic successes
Trust building with funders Number of site visits Quality Indicator reports
tracking site visit metrics
Internal outcomes
Staff, leadership, board members and
volunteers will participate in at
least 40 hours of crisis response
training per year
Number of hours in
training
Training registration
records
Staff will utilize case management
software to generate metrics for
funders
Number of properly
clients tracked in case
management software
Grant applications citing
outcomes generated by
client metrics.
Leadership will develop and
implement organizational protocols
for crisis response
Development of
protocol manual
Progress of development
tracked on organizational
strategic plan
Staff, leadership, board members and
volunteers will have opportunities
each week to review the newly
creating training manual which are
job specific.
Staff and Volunteers
will be familiar with
manual contents in
the time of a crisis.
Online version of training
manual with time
trackers for each
employee
Leadership creates a process to
cultivate funding sources during a
non-crises time, to rely on when a
crisis occurs.
Process is stored in a
shared drive and
updated as needed
Grant and Fundraising
reports track
effectiveness of the
process

122

Level 3: Behavior
In the context of NPO staff, leadership, board members, and volunteers, a behavioral
focus on valuing crisis preparation and response is imperative. If NPO staff, leadership, board
members, and volunteers do not feel it is important to participate in this response, individual and
organizational goals will suffer. Critical behaviors are specific, observable, and measurable
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In addition, the critical behavior of following crisis training,
and protocol directly influences the outcomes (Table 15). If this behavior is not engaged in fully,
the organizational goal will be negatively impacted. Once NPO staff, leadership, board members,
and volunteers dedicate time to achieving goals related to becoming an effective crisis response
organization, goals including collaborations and reliable funding will follow.

123

Table 15
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation NPO Staff, Leadership, Board
Members and Volunteers
Critical behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Value being an
active participant
in crisis response
efforts
a. The number of hours of
training.

a. NPO staff, leadership,
board members and
volunteers log hours in
an online tracking
system.
Quarterly
b. The number of classes b. NPO staff, leadership,
board members and
volunteers log class
descriptions in an
online tracking system
Quarterly
c. The number of
collaborations
participated in during a
time of crisis
c. Number of
collaboration
agreements formal or
informal
Semi-Annually
d. The number of grants
awarded
d. Grant reports tracking
program specific
funding
Quarterly
2. Engage in
meaningful
collaborations
during disasters
and in non-crisis
times.
a. The number
collaboratives
a. Strategic plan metrics Quarterly
b. The number of
collaborative projects
and initiatives
b. Strategic plan metrics Quarterly
c. MOUs c. MOU approval records Semi-Annually
d. Metrics collaborative
project outcomes
d. Case management
system and grant
reports
Monthly
3. Achieve goals
aligned with
becoming
effectively
trained in crisis
response.
a. The consistency and
frequency of setting
goals to achieve
mastery.
a. Staff will submit goals
during their annual
review to a supervisor
and self-report
achievement of goals.
Every 90 Days
124

Critical behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
b. Number of goals in line
with becoming well-
versed in crisis
response methods
b. Supervisors collect
completed goal sheets
from staff.
Quarterly

Required Drivers
Encouragement, rewards, monitoring, and reinforcement will be essential for staff
members to achieve their goals (Table 16). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) noted that success
depends on having the required drivers in place. When discussing NPO stakeholders, it is
appropriate to assume the KMO challenges cited in this study will be present. Retreats are
effective in reinforcing organizational support. In addition, the reward of time off or wellness
days ensures staff members feel they are rewarded for their effort. A supportive environment is
key to ensuring they feel encouraged to do their best and achieve individual and organizational
goals.

125

Table 16
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical behaviors
supported
Reinforcing (K related)
NPO staff, leadership, board member and volunteer retreats
and all-day in-service training
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4
Crisis response job aid manual Daily 2, 3
Reminder signs regarding crisis response protocol Daily 2, 3
On-the-job training related to crisis response Daily 2, 3, 4
Encouraging (M related)
Collaborating with other organizations Weekly 2, 3, 4
Supervisor feedback on a consistent basis Weekly 2, 3, 4
An environment supportive of mastery of crisis response
protocol
Daily 2, 3, 4
Rewarding (M related)
Bonus days off called wellness days for successful
completion of quarterly training requirements
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Staff meeting recognition for achieving goals Monthly 1, 2, 3
Pay increase in line with crisis response certifications and
training
Annually 1, 2, 3
Monitoring (O related)
Observation evaluations of NPO staff Quarterly 2, 3
Reflective self-evaluations Annually 1, 2, 3

Organizational Support
A multi-layered system of accountability will ensure the drivers are implemented
continuously. This system will begin with direct staff supervisors, followed by the executive
council, the board of directors, and major donors. In addition, the staff will also be accountable
to each other to perform at a high level and follow crisis response training and protocol. The
organization will support the staff members’ behaviors by following through with reward
methods to incentivize valuing crisis response mastery.
126

Level 2: Learning
Following the implementation of the program, staff will be able to meet the following
learning goals. The learning objectives will demonstrate staff will gain four types of knowledge:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2000). These
learning goals focus on performing the previously identified Level 3 critical behaviors and
meeting or exceeding the Level 4 outcomes. Staff will be able to
1. Recall crisis response protocol to follow the proper procedures. (Procedural)
2. Carry out crisis response methods taught in training. (Procedural)
3. Reflect on goals, training, and strategies to become well versed in crisis response.
(Metacognitive)
4. Provide guidance to new employees to encourage crisis response mastery. (Conceptual)
5. Respond to questions from new employees regarding training and protocol. (Factual)
Program
A week-long training retreat would be the core program delivery method to address the
aforementioned KMO needs and begin to meet the main goal of NPO staff implementing a
comprehensive crisis response protocol and thoroughly training all staff and volunteers in 12
months. Staff, including supervisors, board members, and volunteers, will gather 30 miles
outside of the campus quarters at Alisal Ranch in Santa Barbara County. The location is
intentionally a serene and calming setting to ensure the top learning environment for staff and
volunteers. For 5 consecutive days, training will take place from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The
recommended program retreat will be 40 hours long, once per year, to support staff members’
achievement of the learning goals. Experts in crisis response will train program staff and
volunteers on integrating new methods into the current framework. During the retreat, program
127

staff and volunteers will experience development in the knowledge dimensions, including
metacognitive, procedural, conceptual, and factual. Employees will each receive iPads at the
retreat, which will be the home base for job aids, the crisis response manual, and streamlined
process checklists. Industry experts will coach retreat participants on how to effectively mentor
new staff members and volunteers. The topic areas will increase factual knowledge and focus on
the transfer of knowledge and motivation. The sessions will be designed to inspire both NPO
staff and volunteers to achieve the greatest results.
The week-long retreat will give supervisors the opportunity to bond with staff outside of
the organization’s setting. Advisers will coach supervisors in creating an environment supportive
of mastery at their organizations. Team building exercises during the week will also further
encourage taking a renewed supportive environment to the job location following the retreat. The
experience will include representatives from large NPOs with robust crisis response plans and
protocols. Opportunities for on-site class registration will be available for staff prepared to
commit to specific courses at the time of the retreat. Following the retreat, 1-day training and
coaching in-services will take place once per month to further incorporate the aforementioned
KMO needs analysis. The consistent follow-up training and feedback will support mastery and
best practices. In addition, any areas needing improvement identified in the observation
evaluations and reflective self-evaluation can be training topics during the 1-day in-service
sessions.
Employees and volunteers will gain mastery through hands-on practice in recalling and
carrying out crisis response methods. This will be accomplished daily, during the normal
workday. The support system will include weekly supervisor feedback. In addition, supervisors
will complete in-depth observation evaluations quarterly. Reflective self-evaluations will give
128

staff and volunteers a chance to create goals and expand their metacognitive knowledge
annually.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
There are five components to evaluate the learning goals at Level 2: knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Many of the methods
used in this specific training will be formative and take place during the retreat and in-service
training sessions. To best test staff and volunteers’ knowledge, tests will be given before, during,
and after the training. In terms of procedural skills, all of the formative assessments will involve
team efforts during the week-long retreat. While attitude, confidence, and commitment may be
more challenging to evaluate, this will be achieved through observations and discussions. Table
17 outlines the timing and method of Level 2 evaluations, with a majority of the activities being
formative.

129

Table 17
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Formative multiple choice knowledge tests. Daily during the week-long retreat.
Pre and Post Tests. Prior to retreat and following retreat
and 1-day in-service training
sessions.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Teach back: NPO staff and volunteers teach portions of
the material to their colleagues.
Repeatedly throughout the week-
long retreat.
Role play demonstration of carrying out best practices. During the week-long retreat.
Simulated scenarios addressed by NPO staff and
volunteers using job aids to perform best practices.
During the week-long retreat.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Group discussions of the value of what the NPO staff
and volunteers are being asked to do on the job.
During the week-long retreat and 1-
day in-service training sessions.
Formative evaluation by training professionals of NPO
staff and volunteers through observation of facial
expressions, actions, and engagement.
During the week-long retreat and 1-
day in-service training sessions.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items scoring confidence. During the week-long retreat and 1-
day in-service training sessions.
Discussions with NPO staff and volunteers. Ongoing post-training.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create individual goals in an action plan. During the week-long retreat and 1-
day in-service training sessions.
Ongoing post training.
Observations by training professionals during retreat
and 1-day in-service training sessions.
During the week-long retreat and 1-
day in-service training sessions.

Level 1: Reaction
There are three levels to evaluate at Level 1, reaction: engagement, relevance, and
customer satisfaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 18 describes the tools, methods,
130

and timing of outcomes evaluation at this level. Observations and surveys are key to gaining
insight into staff and volunteers’ reactions to the retreat and the in-service training sessions.

Table 18
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Observations by training professionals highlighting
readiness, eagerness, and willingness to
participate in the training.
During the week-long retreat and 1-day
in-service training sessions.
Creating quality individual goals in an action plan. During the week-long retreat and 1-day
in-service training sessions. Ongoing
post training.
Training evaluations One week following the training.
Training attendance by NPO staff and volunteers Ongoing annually for retreat and
monthly for 1-day in-service training
sessions.
Relevance

Pulse-check with NPO staff and volunteers via
discussion and quick surveys.
Throughout each day, during the week-
long retreat.
Training evaluations One week following the training.
Customer Satisfaction

Discussions with NPO staff and volunteers Ongoing
Training evaluations. One week following the training.

131

Evaluation Tools
Evaluation tools must be developed while the program is being created (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Tables 17 and 18 detail the tools to immediately measure the effectiveness of
the program implementation for Level 1 and Level 2 markers. A multiple-choice survey will be
utilized to best capture the data related to reaction, engagement, relevance, and customer
satisfaction. Employees and volunteers can rate the effectiveness post-training.
Surveys will also be used in this evaluation plan for Level 2 indicators. For example, staff
and volunteers will score their confidence level during the retreat and training sessions. These
immediate measures will provide quick feedback on the outcomes. Declarative knowledge will
be measured through pre- and post-assessments. The data will indicate the level of knowledge
gained immediately following the training sessions.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation. It will take 2 to 3 months
for observable change to occur among staff and volunteers. As Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) explained, a blended evaluation plan considers efficient utilization of evaluation resources
for Levels 1 through 4. The 3- month delayed evaluation will assess employees and volunteers
through observations and evaluations for Level 3 and 4 results. For example, at the 3-month
mark, staff and volunteers can be observed executing best practices after implementing the
required drivers. They can also be observed on the job while performing mentor duties with
interns utilizing skills learned during the retreat. In addition, retention of Level 1 and Level 2
knowledge will be evaluated through a participant survey at the 3-month mark.
The training plan will rely significantly on crisis response, and the critical behaviors will
need time to develop. Those drivers will be measured at both the 3-month mark and
132

annually. The recommendations include an annual submission of goals to achieve mastery.
Reflective self-evaluations will also be conducted annually.
Data Analysis and Reporting. The immediate and delayed evaluation instruments will
be administered directly through the iPads that staff and volunteers will receive at the retreat.
Retreat participants will have in-training access to their personalized dashboard to complete
surveys. The data will also instantly measure feedback for a more robust response to any areas of
concern. Supervisors will be able to add observations directly into a master application to
encourage continuous improvement and training implementation on the job.
All participants will have the option to view group data markers and compare their results
to other trainees on the application. The app will also automatically populate the desired goal for
the set markers. The app allows the participants to see where they, as a group, rank in the
measurement and compare it with the desired goal.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was integral to plan, implement and evaluate the
aforementioned recommendations to expand on the ability to respond to crises over the next 12
months. As set forth by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), I used the model to implement the
four levels in reverse. This implementation included setting external and internal outcomes first.
Level 3 considered critical behaviors and required drivers. Finally, Levels 2 and 1 focused on the
immediate evaluation during a retreat.
I expect using this framework created a well-planned approach to meeting significant
individual and organizational goals. The advantage of integrating implementation and evaluation
is the incorporation of a proven method to get results and have experience training success. The
Kirkpatrick foundational principle #2 is ROE (Return on Expectations) is the ultimate indicator
133

of value and impresses the importance of having leading indicators targets. As with this plan, if
the Level 4 outcomes are achieved, the project will be considered a success.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations affecting this research should be considered to best
understand this study. Limitations are the circumstances I cannot control as the researcher.
Delimitations fall within my scope to control and are choices I made to guide the research. A
primary potential limitation includes the impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on this study.
Interviews for this research were conducted during the 17
th
month into the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Study participants were in the middle of a prolonged and sustained crisis. At the time of the
interviews California was less than one month into the Governor fully reopening the economy,
stay at home orders being lifted, and enforcement of what was called the blueprint for a safer
economy was terminated. Due to safety protocols the interviews were conducted via Zoom. The
data collected represents an unprecedented time in the history of NPOs. This research has the
delimitation of 12 participants due to the confidence there is sufficient data for a robust
understanding of the areas of inquiry. The study was delimited to Santa Barbara, California
because of the adequate number of NPOs in the area and the series of crises experienced.
Delimitations also include a focus on the KMO framework and three research questions,
excluding data outside of that scope. For example, this study produced rich data on NPO
leadership in general, which can be used to guide future research.
Recommendations for Future Research
The literature on NPO crisis preparation and response stresses the importance of
additional research on the topic (Simo & Bies, (2007); Chikoto et al, 2013). Robinson and
Murphy, (2013) argue there is a value in future research on this topic because it can obtain
134

critical insight into the core operations of NPOs while experiencing disruption. In this study,
100% of participants did not cite research as materials that guide their decisions while leading a
NPO through a crisis. While I did not specifically ask if participants knew of any research related
to NPOs and crisis response, the question mentioned above was designed to elicit reference to
related literature, if NPO leaders knew about the research and utilized it.
Future research recommended would include interviewing this study’s participants after 1
year, 3 years and 5 years. It would be valuable, as they would have had additional time to
evaluate their experiences. As the limitations explained this research was conducted while
participants were in the middle of a global pandemic. Also, additional crises may occur in the
next 5 years to give added insight for future studies. The group of participants in this research
includes some of the best NPO leaders in the country who have extensive experience leading
NPOs through disasters and crises. There is a great opportunity for future research to dissect
some of the intricate and critical collaborations cited in this research. The collaboration examples
drawn from the research data can lead to development of enhanced crisis response protocols,
training, and manuals in the NPO sector. Future studies can then evaluate the effectiveness of the
tools and resources developed. Examining KMO influences exclusively related to collaborations
would benefit the overall process of creation and implementation of partnerships including
NPOs. The lack of related literature in contrast to the rich data obtained from 12 interviews
highlights the opportunity for future research on this topic. The future research is critical because
it will likely save lives in the time of a crisis.
Conclusion
The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis was utilized in this study to examine what
KMO influences affect NPOs preparing for and responding to crises. This study can have a
135

critical value to the NPO sector by helping improve the methods and tools NPOs use when a
crisis occurs. Throughout the interviews, participants did not reference a guiding resource on the
topic. The research data validated 12 out of 14 assumed KMO influences as gaps or assets based
on the literature review. Seven out of 12 participants was the threshold to validate an asset in this
research, fewer is validated as a gap. Participants demonstrated procedural, factual, conceptual,
and metacognitive knowledge related to preparing for a crisis. However, there were knowledge
gaps identified related to training and protocol. Increasing knowledge in these areas will support
NPOs improving crisis response efforts. COVID-19 specific training and protocols did not exist
as it was a novel crisis. However, there is now an opportunity to utilize training and protocols
developed during the pandemic for future crises. The findings guided the recommendation to
focus on training and education for staff and volunteers.
The data in this study supported the assertions in the literature that collaborations are
critical in crisis response. In addition, the results of this research illustrate that importance
through current COVID-19 collaboration examples described by several participants. Motivation
data revealed participates were highly motivated and had high-self efficacy related to
participating in collaborations. The high-self efficacy was attributed to mastery experiences for
most of the participants. The motivation recommendation as a result of the findings included
refining the creation and participation in collaborations by NPOs before and during a crisis. This
can be achieved through including funding foundations in partnerships and team building to
promote effective collaborations. A significant organization influence revealed in this research
was crisis response funding. Participants expressed the importance of developing funding
relationships before a crisis. The recommendations in this study focus on improving fundraising
plans, program metrics and outcomes.
136

The findings in this study reveal not only is there an important need for future research,
but also the need for trainings and protocol related to NPOs responding to crises. As a result of
COVID-19, many participants in this study created new processes. The pandemic has been a
time of learning, innovation, and growth for the NPOs in this study, NPOs are a primary resource
for life-saving support during a time of crisis, the better they can prepare and respond to a crisis,
the more lives are positively impacted. NPOs are the safety net of our society. This research
highlighted some deficiencies in that safety net, but also some areas of strength and structure.

137

References
Abbasi, K., & Kapucu, N. (2015). A longitudinal study of evolving networks in response to
natural disaster. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 22(1), 47–70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-015-9196-7
Akingbola, K. (2020). COVID-19: The Prospects for Nonprofit Human Resource Management.
Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 11(1), 16–20.
https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser.2020v11n1a372
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. In J. G.
Adair, D. Belanger, & K. L. Dions (Eds.), Advances in psychological science (Vol. 1),
Personal, social, and cultural aspects (pp. 51–71). Psychology Press.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Bisri, M. (2013). Examining inter-organizational network during emergency response of West
Java Earthquake 2009, Indonesia. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, 889–898.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2013.02.107
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-
Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review,
66(s1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
138

Buckley, P. (2020, April 8). U.S. Policy Response to COVID-19 aims to set the stage for
recovery. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/covid-
19/evolution-and-policy-response-to-the-covid-19-crisis.html
Centre for Social Impact and Philanthropy. (2020). Ashoka University’s CSIP & Harvard offer
COVID response programme for nonprofits. https://csip.ashoka.edu.in/ashoka-
universitys-csip-harvard-offer-covid-response-programme-for-nonprofits/
Charities Aid Foundation of America. (2020). The Voice of Charities Facing COVID-19
Worldwide (Vol. 5). https://www.cafamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/5_CV19_
Report_9_22.pdf
Cheng, Y., Yu, J., Shen, Y., & Huang, B. (2020). Coproducing Responses to COVID‐19 with
Community‐Based Organizations: Lessons from Zhejiang Province, China. Public
Administration Review, 80(5), 866–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13244
Chikoto, G., Sadiq, A., & Fordyce, E. (2013). Disaster mitigation and preparedness: Comparison
of nonprofit, public, and private organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 42(2), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012452042
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub.
Comfort, L. (2005). Risk, security, and disaster management. Annual Review of Political
Science, 8(1), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.081404.075608
Comfort, K., & Kapucu, N. (2006). Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The
World Trade Center attacks, September 11, 2001. Natural Hazards, 39(2), 309–327.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0030-x
139

Comfort, W., Waugh, W., & Cigler, B. (2012). Emergency Management Research and Practice
in Public Administration: Emergence, Evolution, Expansion, and Future Directions [with
Commentary]. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 539–547.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02549.x
Companies adapting giving strategies due to COVID‐19. (2020). Nonprofit Business Advisor,
2020(370), 12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30809
COVID‐19 relief laws benefit nonprofit organizations. (2020). Bruce R. Hopkins’ Nonprofit
Counsel, 37(6), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/npc.30726
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Donahue, J., & Joyce, P. G. (2001). A framework for analyzing emergency management with an
application to federal budgeting. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 728–740.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00143
Donahue, P. (2020). Partnering Small Enterprises and Local Nonprofits to Help Sustain Local
Economies and Reduce the Spread of COVID‐19. World Medical & Health Policy, 12,
374–379. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.360
Dong, Q., & Lu, J. (2020). In the Shadow of the Government: The Chinese Nonprofit Sector in
the COVID-19 Crisis. American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 784–789.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942457
eBay Foundation increases commitment to COVID‐19 relief. (2020). Corporate Philanthropy
Report, 35(7), 2–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/cprt.30627
140

Finchum-Mason, E., Husted, K., & Suárez, D. (2020). Philanthropic Foundation Responses to
COVID-19. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1129–1141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020966047
Gajewski, S., Bell, H., Lein, L., & Angel, R. (2011). Complexity and Instability: The Response
of Nongovernmental Organizations to the Recovery of Hurricane Katrina Survivors in a
Host Community. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 389–403.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010362115
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
GivingTuesdayNow raises over $500 million for COVID‐19 relief. (2020). Nonprofit Business
Advisor, 2020(370), 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30792
Grant, O. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in
dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues
Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Grizzle, D., Goodin, A., & Robinson, S. (2020). Connecting with New Partners in COVID‐19
Response. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 629–633.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13247
Habitat for Humanity cuts staff amid COVID‐19 pandemic. (2020). Corporate Philanthropy
Report, 35(6), 3–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/cprt.30602
Kaltenbrunner, K., & Renzl, B. (2019). Social capital in emerging collaboration between NPOs
and volunteers: Performance effects and sustainability prospects in disaster relief.
Voluntas, 30(5), 976–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00123-6
141

Kapucu, N. (2006). Public‐nonprofit partnerships for collective action in dynamic contexts of
emergencies. Public Administration, 84(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-
3298.2006.00500.x
Kapucu, N. (2007). Non-profit response to catastrophic disasters. Disaster Prevention and
Management, 16(4), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560710817039
Kapucu, G., & Garayev, V. (2011). Collaborative decision-making in emergency and disaster
management. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(6), 366–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.561477
Kapucu, G., & Garayev, V. (2013). Designing, managing, and sustaining functionally
collaborative emergency management networks. American Review of Public
Administration, 43(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012444719
Kiefer, J., & Montjoy, R. (2006). Incrementalism before the storm: Network performance for the
evacuation of New Orleans. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 122–130.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00672.x
Kim, M., & Mason, D. (2020). Are You Ready: Financial Management, Operating Reserves, and
the Immediate Impact of COVID-19 on Nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 49(6), 1191–1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020964584
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD
Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kunz, N., Reiner, G., & Gold, S. (2014). Investing in disaster management capabilities versus
pre-positioning inventory: A new approach to disaster preparedness. International
142

Journal of Production Economics, 157, 261–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.11.002
Lecy, S., & Searing, E. A. M. (2015). Anatomy of the nonprofit starvation cycle: An analysis of
falling overhead ratios in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
44(3), 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014527175
Lindner, J. R. (2019). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of Extension, 36(3).
Hurley, L. (2020, April 7). Event pros tweak fundraising galas in face of COVID crisis. Special
Events Magazine. https://www.specialevents.com/galasfundraisers/event-pros-tweak-
fundraising-galas-face-covid-crisis
Liu, J., Hao, J., Shi, Z., & Bao, H. X. H. (2020). Building the COVID-19 Collaborative
Emergency Network: a case study of COVID-19 outbreak in Hubei Province, China.
(2020). Natural Hazards, 104, 2687–2717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04379-w
Loomis, J. (2020). The COVID-19 Wildfire: Nonprofit Organizational Challenge and
Opportunity. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 11(2), 8–11.
https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser.2020v11n2a396
Maher, C., Hoang, T., & Hindery, A. (2020). Fiscal Responses to COVID‐19: Evidence from
Local Governments and Nonprofits. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 644–650.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13238
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Wiley.
143

Miao, Q., Schwarz, S., & Schwarz, G. (2021). Responding to COVID-19: Community
volunteerism and coproduction in China. World Development, 137, 105128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105128
Mitchell, C., & Calabrese, T. D. (2018). Proverbs of Nonprofit Financial Management. American
Review of Public Administration, 49(6), 649–661.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018770458
Moon, M. (2020). Fighting COVID‐19 with agility, transparency, and participation: Wicked
policy problems and new governance challenges. Public Administration Review, 80(4),
651–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13214
Nolte, I., & Boenigk, S. (2011). Public-nonprofit partnership performance in a disaster context:
The case of Haiti. Public Administration, 89(4), 1385–1402.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01950.x
Nolte, I. (2018). Interorganizational collaborations for humanitarian aid: An analysis of
partnership, community, and single organization outcomes. Public Performance &
Management Review, 41(3), 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1462212
Paarlberg, L., LePere-Schloop, M., Walk, M., Ai, J., & Ming, Y. (2020). Activating community
resilience: The emergence of COVID-19 funds across the United States. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1119–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020968155
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
144

Pena, A., Zahran, S., Underwood, A., & Weiler, S. (2014). Effect of natural disasters on local
nonprofit activity: Effect of natural disasters. Growth and Change, 45(4), 590–610.
https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12056
Quarshie, A., & Leuschner, R. (2018). Cross-sector social interactions and systemic change in
disaster response: A qualitative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 357–384.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3860-z
Quarshie, A., & Leuschner, R. (2020). Interorganizational Interaction in disaster response
networks: A government perspective. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 56(3),
3–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12225
Rittel, W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,
4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Robinson, S., Eller, W., Gall, M., & Gerber, B. (2013). The core and periphery of emergency
management networks. Public Management Review, 15(3), 344–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.769849
Robinson, S., & Murphy, H. (2013). Frontiers for the study of nonprofit organizations in
disasters: Intro: Nonprofits in disaster. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 4(2),
128–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12038
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: a guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Wiley.
Shi, Y., Jang, H., Keyes, L., & Dicke, L. (2020). nonprofit service continuity and responses in
the pandemic: Disruptions, ambiguity, innovation, and challenges. Public Administration
Review, 80(5), 874–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13254
145

Simo, G., & Bies, A. (2007). The role of nonprofits in disaster response: An expanded model of
cross-sector collaboration. Public Administration Review, 67(S1), 125–142.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00821.x
Simo, G. (2009). Sustaining cross-sector collaborations: Lessons from New Orleans. Public
Organization Review, 9(4), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0091-x
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223– 247). Sage.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is a ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing
UNICEF. (2015). Return on investment for emergency preparedness study. https://www.unicef.
org/media/50896/file/UNICEF_WFP_Return_on_Investment_for_Emergency_Preparedn
ess_Study-ENG.pdf
UNICEF. (2016). Phase 2 of a United Nations inter-agency project to develop a toolkit for the
humanitarian community. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/
return_on_investment_in_emergeny_preparedness_phase_2.pdf
Williams, B., Valero, J., & Kim, K. (2018). Social media, trust, and disaster: Does trust in public
and nonprofit organizations explain social media use during a disaster? Quality &
Quantity, 52(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0594-4
Wu, W., & Chang, S. (2018). Collaboration mechanisms of Taiwan nonprofit organizations in
disaster relief efforts: Drawing lessons from the Wenchuan earthquake and Typhoon
Morakot. Sustainability, 10(11), 4328–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114328
146

Wukich, C., Hu, Q., & Siciliano, M. (2019). Cross-sector emergency information networks on
social media: Online bridging and bonding communication patterns. American Review of
Public Administration, 49(7), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019861701
Zhang, Z., Shen, Y., & Yu, J. (2020). Combating COVID-19 together: China’s collaborative
response and the role of business associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
49(6), 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020964591

147

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Research Questions
1. What knowledge influences affect how NPO executive directors prepare for a crisis?
2. What motivation influences affect whether NPO executive directors actively collaborate
with other agencies before and during a crisis?
3. What organizational influences affect how NPO executive directors respond to a crisis?
Respondent Type
Executive directors at nonprofit organizations in Santa Barbara, CA
Introduction
I would like to start off by saying thank you for taking time out of your day to participate in this
study. I am a graduate student at USC and conducting this research for my dissertation. The
purpose of this study is to understand the process you use for nonprofit organizations to thrive
during a significant crisis. Your participation in this study is voluntary and your signature is not
required for this exempt research. I would like to review the Information Sheet for Exempt
Research form with you again (share screen and review sheet). I will be recording this Zoom
interview to preserve it for analysis and delete the interview when I complete the research. Is that
okay with you? I will use the Zoom transcript for analysis. These will also be deleted following
the research. If at any time you need me to pause or stop the recording just let me know, I want
you to feel comfortable throughout this interview. You can skip any questions or stop the
interview at any time. The interview will take about an hour. If at any time you need to get up
and stretch or take a break, please just let me know. Throughout the interview I will use the
acronym NPOs for nonprofit organizations. Do you have any questions before we get started?
Interview Questions
148

1. Describe the role of nonprofits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up probes: What
about the role during the Thomas Fire and Debri Flow? (RQ3: O)
2. What recommendations do you have for nonprofit executive directors to improve
preparing for and responding to a crisis? (RQ1, 2, & 3: KMO)
3. Is it important for you to lead your organization successfully during a crisis? Why? (RQ2:
M) Follow-up probes: Do you feel confident in your ability to lead your organization
during a crisis? Any example? (self-efficacy)
4. Describe the protocol that you have to follow during a crisis. (RQ1: K) (declarative
knowledge) Follow-up probes: Do you feel you know how to train your employees to
prepare for and respond to a crisis? (Procedural knowledge)
5. Is it important for the organization you are leading to participate in collaborations with
other agencies in a time of crisis? Follow-up probes: Do feel you know the process for
creating a collaboration to prepare and respond to a crisis (RQ1&2: KM)
6. What do you believe is the role of nonprofits in collaborations with other agencies during
the COVID-19 pandemic? Follow-up probes: What about the Thomas Fire and Debris
Flow? (RQ2: M)
7. Take me to the room where these partners are collaborating during a crisis and describe
what is happening in that space. Follow-up probes: This can include if you have formal
agreements, if someone is leading the group and/or how the members interact. (RQ1: K)
8. Describe the role nonprofit volunteers have had during the COVID-19 pandemic. (RQ2:
K) Follow-up probes: How about during the Thomas Fire or debris Flow?
9. What has affected your organization the most during the COVID-19 pandemic? (RQ3: O)
Follow-up probes: How about the impacts during the Thomas Fire and debris Flow?
149

10. Has the COVID-19 pandemic forced your organization to improve any weaknesses?
(RQ3: O)
11. Many nonprofits close their doors due to a crisis, what resources or supports do you
believe could help prevent at least some of the closures? (RQ1, 2, &3: KMO)
12. Are there any materials you recommend that help guide your decisions in leading a
nonprofit through a crisis? (RQ1, 2, & 3: KMO)
Conclusion
I want to thank you again for taking time for this interview today. I will now spend time over the
next few days transcribing the interview. If I have any additional questions during that process, is
it okay if I call or email you to follow-up? Do you have any questions about the process before
we wrap-up today? If any questions arise, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. I appreciate
and value your time and participation in today’s interview.

150

Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol

The study examined available documents related to NPO crisis preparation and response. The
researcher focused on analyzing relevant documents addressing KMO influences. Study
participants were asked to provide any of the following documents if they existed:
1. Organizational crisis response policies
2. Crisis response collaboration strategic plans, MOUs, charters, outcomes, reports, and
meeting minutes
3. News articles and media coverage
4. Social media
5. Websites and marketing material
Document Prompts:
1. Does the document reference a crisis collaboration, policy or response effort involving
NPOs? (RQ1&2; KM)
2. Does the document outline methods for an NPO to prepare and/or respond to a crisis?
(RQ1&3; KO)
3. Does the document outline NPO requirements for crisis related funding? (RQ3; O)
4. Does the document outline NPO strategies to implement in response to a crisis? (RQ3; O)
5. Does the document identify lessons learned and/or best practices related to NPO crisis
preparation and/or response? (RQ1&3; KO)

151

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
USC Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90069

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: A Strategy to Thrive During a Crisis for Nonprofit Organizations

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Regina Ruiz

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Kim Ferrario

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand the process for nonprofit organizations to
thrive during a significant crisis. When the days of the COVID-19 pandemic are over, a
new survey found that one in three nonprofits (NPOs) globally could be permanently
closed. Large-scale disasters have a significant effect on NPOs and it’s important NPOs
don’t close due to any significant crisis because they are essential in relief efforts. We
hope to identify the framework to survive and thrive during a crisis. You are invited as a
possible participant because you are a top executive director of a NPO in Santa
Barbara, California, which is the focus city for this research.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in a one-hour interview
conducted via Zoom and will be recorded to preserve the data for analysis. The
recording and transcript will be deleted after the research is complete. Participants can
decline having the interview recorded or request to have the recording stopped at any
time during the interview.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no compensation for participating in this study.

152

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the findings of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
identifiable information will be used. Your information will be kept confidential. You will
have the right to review the transcripts from the Zoom interview. Pseudonyms will be
used for your name and your organization’s name to disguise personal identities. The
Zoom recording will be maintained until the research is complete and the data is
analyzed.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact investigator Regina Ruiz,
raruiz@usc.edu, 805-755-9876 and/or faculty advisor Dr. Kim Ferrario,
kferrari@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Burnout of female executive directors in nonprofit organizations during COVID-19

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Understand how leaders use data to measure the effectiveness of leadership development programs

PDF

An assessment of a nonprofit organization’s effort to increase its staff diversity

PDF

Unpredicted but not unexpected: developing prepared health and human services crisis leaders

PDF

Managerial coaching to increase diversity, build capacity, and improve nonprofit performance

PDF

Avoidance of inpatient medical necessity denials for short-stay admissions: an evaluative study

PDF

Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis

PDF

Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis

PDF

Communicating to volunteers

PDF

Impact of training on leader's ability to effectively lead during a crisis

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study

PDF

The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States

Asset Metadata

Creator Ruiz, Regina Anne (author)

Core Title A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 12/06/2021

Defense Date 11/18/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag California,coronavirus,COVID-19,Crises,Crisis,crisis response,disaster,disaster response,emergency,emergency response,executive directors,Montecito,Montecito debris flow,nonprofit,nonprofit organizations,nonprofits,OAI-PMH Harvest,Santa Barbara,social services,Thomas Fire

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Min, Emmy (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email raruiz@usc.edu,reginaruiznews@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC17895965

Unique identifier UC17895965

Legacy Identifier etd-RuizRegina-10279

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ruiz, Regina Anne

Type texts

Source 20211208-wayne-usctheses-batch-902-nissen (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu