Repository - evidence base on quality funding
The Norwegian Refugee Council's report presents ten lessons from the first years of the Programme Based Approach (PBA) implementation and learning.
The Catalogue for Quality Funding Practices to the Humanitarian Response provides evidence and examples of 11 existing funding mechanisms or arrangements identified by donors and recipients as providing ‘quality funding’ for humanitarian response. As outlined during the recent Grand Bargain Annual Meeting, this catalogue provides case studies and examples of best practices in quality funding that are available to be scaled-up and implemented.
This report lays out the various ways flexible funding supports the ICRC’s work: from operations in the field to humanitarian diplomacy.
From January to April 2020, UNICEF conducted an internal assessment to support the overall objectives of the Grand Bargain workstream 7+8 on Enhanced quality funding.” In particular, the exercise aimed to address one of the Grand Bargain commitments related to the cascading of quality funding to implementing partners at the organizational level Information was collected through interviews with key informants.
This report by International Rescue Committee, with support from Development Initiatives, builds on the already strong evidence base for multi-year flexible funding. A comparative analysis of two cash programmes in Somalia funded by DFID and Sida, which draws on data collected using the Systematic Cost Analysis (SCAN) tool developed by IRC with Save the Children and Mercy Corps, provides preliminary indications of quantifiable cost efficiency gains of multi-year funding. And three case studies—from Central African Republic, Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire—reveal the qualitative benefits of multi-year, flexible financing.
Field perspectives on multi-year humanitarian funding and planning: How theory has translated into practice in Jordan and Lebanon
The study, conceived as a multi-stakeholder contribution to the Grand Bargain workstream 7&8 (Increase collaborative humanitarian multi-year planning and funding and reduce the earmarking of donor contribution), provides significant evidence to support the claim that NGOs can do more with predictable and flexible funding and identifies a number of straight-forward recommendations for NGOs, UN agencies and donor partners to implement. Jordan and Lebanon were selected as two sample contexts, given their protracted and relatively stable crisis contexts with a degree of comparability.
To test how far the potential benefits of multi-year humanitarian funding (MYHF) can be realised in practice, DFID commissioned a four-year thematic evaluation of MYHF to run in parallel with the first MYHF business cases in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia and Pakistan.
This report assesses the value for money and effectiveness of DFID’s emergency response in the Horn of Africa.