From Disaster Recovery to Daily Resilience: How New Jersey’s Resilient Communities Grants Can Protect Food and Energy Security

When storms flood streets or knock out power, the damage is obvious. What’s easier to miss is the long tail: ruined appliances, higher utility bills from damp buildings, missed work, and the slow depletion of savings. For vulnerable families, that “recovery gap” often shows up at the food pantry or in a utility shutoff notice.

New Jersey’s Resilient Communities Program offers a way to turn disaster recovery funding into long-term protection—by paying for public-infrastructure projects that reduce flood risk and make neighborhoods safer to live in. The program provides competitive grants for risk-reduction and resiliency measures, funded through federal Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) resources tied to Hurricane Ida (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)).

This report explains how the program works, why it matters for household food-and-energy stability, and what nonprofits can do—right now—to help communities shape projects that center the needs of families who face the steepest climate and cost pressures.

What the Resilient Communities Program is (and what it’s for)

At its core, the Resilient Communities Program is a mitigation and infrastructure grant program administered by New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Division of Disaster Recovery and Mitigation. Its purpose is to fund “resilient infrastructure activities” that fortify communities against severe weather and flood damage and to support “eligible flood hazard risk-reduction and resiliency measures” (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)).

The funding stream matters. CDBG-DR was created for long-term recovery after major disasters—precisely the place where families often get left behind. In the policy manual, DCA notes that the state received $228.346 million in CDBG-DR funds as a result of Hurricane Ida (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)). These funds are meant to address “unmet needs” not satisfied by other sources (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)).

In other words: it’s a chance to fix what repeated flooding breaks—before the next storm turns the same blocks into a disaster zone again.

Why infrastructure grants can be “food and energy security” grants in practice

Food security and energy security are often treated as separate issues: groceries vs. utility bills. But climate impacts fuse them together. After floods, families may lose refrigerators and freezers, face higher electric usage from damp buildings, and spend more on transportation when routes are disrupted. If cash reserves are thin, the immediate tradeoff becomes brutal: pay for repairs, pay the bill, or buy food.

That’s why hazard mitigation has an overlooked benefit: it protects household budgets. A community that invests in stormwater upgrades, drainage, and flood-risk reduction is also reducing the frequency of “expense shocks” that destabilize families.

The Resilient Communities Program is designed around that logic: it requires that projects produce risk-reduction benefits and be technically feasible and effective at reducing hazard risks (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)). The manual’s list of eligible activities includes infrastructure construction or reconstruction and other site improvements—exactly the kinds of work that can stop repetitive flooding from damaging homes, streets, and critical services (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)).

What kinds of projects the program can fund

The policy guidelines describe a wide range of mitigation activities, such as property acquisition and demolition/relocation, structure elevation, infrastructure construction or reconstruction, installation of public works and facilities, and structural retrofitting (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)). Not every community needs the same intervention—but many communities share the same underlying objective: reduce future losses and speed up recovery.

One practical example: In January 2026, the Town of Guttenberg signed a $1.258 million Resilient Communities grant agreement to build a new network of inlets and pipes and to replace portions of the stormwater system along JFK Boulevard East—work specifically aimed at flood control and reducing future storm impacts (Hudson County View).

Projects like these may not look like “basic needs” interventions at first glance. But the chain of impact is clear: fewer flooded streets means fewer damaged basements, fewer mold problems, fewer appliance losses, fewer missed workdays, and fewer emergency expenses that force families to cut food spending or fall behind on utilities.

Equity is built into the rules—if communities use it

Disaster funding can unintentionally widen inequality when communities with more capacity write stronger applications and move faster through compliance. DCA’s policy manual attempts to counter that by prioritizing low- and moderate-income (LMI) benefits. It notes that 70% of activity funds must benefit LMI persons and that applications meeting an LMI national objective receive preference over those meeting the “urgent need” objective (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)).

The manual also references preferences for projects that protect and benefit disadvantaged communities and describes using tools like the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to identify communities with higher vulnerability (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)). That matters for nonprofits because it provides language—and a framework—for insisting that projects reduce risk where families are most likely to suffer cascading harm.

Equity design is not only about who gets protected; it’s also about whether community members have voice. The program requires public notice and hearings as part of project development (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)). Local partners can use that requirement as an opening to ensure residents speak about the lived reality of floods: the food that spoils, the medical equipment that needs power, the rent that still comes due when wages are lost.

Timelines and constraints: what “ready to deliver” really means

These grants come with real deadlines. DCA notes that funded projects must be feasible to complete by the federal expenditure deadline of January 13, 2029 (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)). That means communities need projects that are not just worthy, but ready: scoped, permitted, and capable of passing benefit-cost review and federal compliance steps.

That readiness requirement can be a barrier for smaller towns and community partners—but it’s also why planning programs matter. In 2025, New Jersey expanded its Resilient NJ planning program by an additional $10 million, offering up to $300,000 grants for groups of at least three contiguous municipalities (with at least one community-based organization) to develop comprehensive Resilience Action Plans (Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)). Those planning deliverables include vulnerability assessments, risk-reduction actions, cost-benefit analyses, and actionable plans (Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)).

Put simply: planning grants can help communities build the pipeline of “shovel-ready” projects that implementation programs like Resilient Communities can fund.

A nonprofit’s role: translating household needs into infrastructure priorities

Nonprofits are often the first to see the human pattern behind climate events: a spike in pantry demand after a storm, more calls for emergency utility help during heat waves, more housing instability after repeated basement floods. That on-the-ground insight can strengthen resilience project selection and design.

Here are practical ways nonprofits and community partners can contribute—without needing to be engineers:

1) Build a “cascading impacts” evidence packet

Infrastructure proposals are frequently judged on technical risk reduction. Nonprofits can add something equally important: documented, localized household impacts. Collect anonymized indicators such as:

• Food pantry demand spikes after flood events
• Common appliance loss (refrigerators, washers/dryers) after basement flooding
• Utility arrears trends during storm-heavy seasons
• Transportation disruptions that affect access to groceries and services

This helps communities show why a project is not only protective of roads and pipes, but protective of household stability.

2) Advocate for project locations that match vulnerability

Use the program’s equity preferences to push for investments where vulnerability is highest. The policy manual’s emphasis on LMI benefit and disadvantaged-community considerations supports that alignment (NJ Department of Community Affairs (policy manual)).

3) Show up at required hearings—with specific asks

Because public engagement is required, nonprofits can help residents prepare testimony and submit written comments. The most effective comments connect a proposed project to concrete outcomes: fewer flooded blocks, fewer spoiled groceries, fewer emergency expenses, and fewer forced tradeoffs between food and utilities.

4) Encourage “resilience co-benefits” during design

When possible, promote project elements that multiply benefits—especially for families who face the highest energy and food insecurity. Examples can include safer access routes to critical services during storms, or designs that reduce repetitive dampness and mold that drive higher electricity use and health burdens. (Specific design options will vary by location and engineering constraints.)

How Love of Humanity thinks about resilience funding

Love of Humanity’s mission is climate-resilient food and energy for vulnerable families. That mission requires two kinds of work:

1. Immediate relief when families are already in crisis.
2. Upstream prevention that reduces the frequency and severity of crises.

The Resilient Communities Program sits squarely in the second category. It is not a short-term assistance program. It is a way to reduce repeated loss—so fewer families reach the point where they need emergency food or utility help after each storm.

For community partners, the takeaway is practical: treat resilience funding as household-stability funding. When you advocate for drainage, stormwater, and flood mitigation, you are also advocating for families’ ability to keep food cold, keep lights on, and keep housing secure in a changing climate.