Image by UN Women/Christopher Herwig
  • Background paper

Multi-year humanitarian funding: Global baselines and trends: Appendix 1

Methodology

Publication downloads

The study used a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Primary quantitative data was collected from donor and aid organisation signatories to the Grand Bargain. Qualitative data was collected through key informant interviews with representatives of donors and aid organisations that are Grand Bargain signatories. A total of 18 interviews was carried out – six with donors and 12 with aid organisations.

Summary of the donors and aid organisations participating in key informant interviews

Donors
1 Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
2 Department for International Development (DFID) – United Kingdom
3 Deutsche Humanitäre Hilfe – Germany
4 Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs – the Netherlands
5 European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) – European Commission
6 Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Norway
Aid organisations
1 Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
2 CARE International
3 Christian Aid
4 Country-based Pooled Funds (CBPF)
5 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
6 International Rescue Committee (IRC)
7 Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)
8 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
9 Save the Children
10 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
11 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
12 World Food Programme (WFP)

The quantitative research consisted of two surveys designed to collect structured data from two categories of Grand Bargain signatories: donors and aid organisations (including UN agencies, NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement). Respondents were asked to report humanitarian funding provided and received respectively. However, they reported according to their own definitions of what constitutes humanitarian funding, and there might exist internal overlaps between humanitarian and development funding streams.

Donors and aid organisations responding to the data survey

Donors
1 Australia
2 Belgium
3 Canada
4 European Commission
5 Germany
6 Italy
7 Netherlands
8 Spain
9 Sweden
10 United Kingdom
11 United States
Aid organisations
1 Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
2 Country-based Pooled Funds (CBPF)
3 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
4 International Rescue Committee (IRC)
5 Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)
6 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
7 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
8 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
9 World Food Programme (WFP)
10 Zambia Orphans Aid International (ZOA International)

For member states, the survey requested financial figures on total institutional humanitarian funding provided and the amount of multi-year humanitarian contributions in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Member states were also asked to provide a breakdown of the multi-year contributions by contract flows, comprising information on recipient type, contract start and end dates, duration of contract, total value contracted, end date of contract extension, total value of extended contract, earmarking modalities and project locations. There was an additional field to capture comments on contractual terms.

For aid organisations, the survey tool requested total income from institutional and private sources, and the amount of multi-year expenditure through implementing partners and self-implemented multi-year operations. These organisations were also asked to provide a breakdown of the contracts signed with their partners, including data on recipient type, contract start and end dates, duration of contract, total value contracted, end date of contract extension, total value extended, sector or cluster, and project location. There was an extra field to capture comments on contractual terms.

For earmarking, we used the four modalities and their respective definitions as agreed in the Grand Bargain document[1]: unearmarked, softly earmarked, earmarked and tightly earmarked.

The survey tools and the survey dissemination note were circulated by the Grand Bargain Secretariat on 12 April 2019. Organisations returned their completed surveys during the months of April to August 2019.

The figures collected were aggregated separately for member states and aid organisations. The latter also receive private contributions, and alongside different sample sizes, this prevents reconciling the donor and aid organisation databases (see the section called ‘Financial tracking and reporting: Data gaps and challenges’).

Limitations

Response rates: Of the 24 member states who were sent a quantitative survey, 11 responded, or 46%. Of the 37 aid organisations sent a quantitative survey, 10 responded (27%). Four aid organisations provided granular data and one provided aggregated data on the multi-year funding they pass to second-level recipients. Five aid organisations reported no multi-year expenditure for downstream partners. Of these, three reported that they do not pass on multi-year funding to partners, while two provided no breakdown of their multi-year expenditure.

Data representativeness: Qualitative findings should not be read as necessarily representative of the wider humanitarian landscape, given the small sample sizes, but should be read as points for wider discussion and future research. Qualitative data was largely based on anecdotal evidence, supported by organisational documentation, where appropriate and available.

Notes