US funding freeze global survey

Key Messages

• The second round of the global survey highlights major consequences for humanitarian action around the world due to US terminations of awards. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents who previously received US funding reported having received a termination. Only 33 per cent of these terminations had been rescinded by 21 March.
• The US cuts are part of a broader shrinking of humanitarian funding. Over 29 per cent of survey respondents reported cuts/reductions from other donors.
• These cuts are having devastating consequences for people in crisis, including women and girls—at least 79 million people will no longer be targeted for assistance by respondents to the survey. Almost 76 per cent of respondents that had received US termination notices reported that this resulted in a reduction of delivery of life-saving assistance for women and girls.
• The funding cuts have caused a major contraction of humanitarian operations. Respondents reported the termination of at least 12,000 staff contracts and at least 22 responding organizations indicated that they had to completely close or shut down in the relevant country. NNGO respondents reported the highest proportion of terminations received, with higher rates for Women-Led and Refugee Led Organizations, as compared to INGOs and UN entities.

A. Methodology & Constraints

1. OCHA, carried out a second round of the survey following the announcement of the US grants’ termination, in collaboration with IOM, UNHCR and ICVA. The survey was open for submissions from 10 to 21 March. The first round had looked at suspension orders and waivers.

2. Some 981 submissions were received across 68 operations, 25 of them with 10 submissions or more. This includes high response rates (>30 partners) in major emergencies highly dependent on US funds, such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Nigeria. An important volume of submissions (>10 partners) was also recorded from 5 countries with refugee appeals/plans (Poland, Uganda, Moldova, Romania and Rwanda).

3. However, the overall response rate was lower the Round 1 of the survey, which had over 1,000 respondents. There were also a lower proportion of respondents having received US funding (521 out of 981 i.e. 53 per cent), yielding a lower proportion of analysable results as compared to Round 1, when 69 per cent of the over 1,000 respondents reported having received US Stop Work Orders (SWOs). This makes the results of Round 2 with respect to US funding trends less reliable.

4. National NGOs (450) again submitted the highest number of responses, followed by international NGOs (345). There were 141 responses from UN entities. However, response rates varied within and between entities, and this had consequences for the comprehensiveness of the survey’s results, especially with respect to sectoral findings. There was also a lower overall response rate compared to the first survey round, despite the expansion to additional country contexts. Smaller numbers of responses were received from: Government entities (11), private sector entities (9), NGO Forums (10) and Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement partners (8. [Note: Given low submissions by these entities, the survey analysis focuses primarily on the categories of NNGO, INGO and UN.]

5. Whilst the number of submissions was considerable, the survey results were impacted by which organizations did/did not respond and should therefore be used with caution. As indicated above, there was an overall reduction in survey responses as compared to the first round, and there was also a lower proportion of respondents reporting having received US funding, which impacted the overall results.

6. The following should therefore be considered as general parameters when interpreting the data:

1. The higher the response rate in the country context, the more indicative the data is likely to be regarding the impact of US suspensions in that country. Note: Response rate is relative, as if there are a lower overall number of partners in the country context, a smaller number of respondents is to be expected.
2. The higher the response rate for a specific sector/cluster/Area of Responsibility, the more reliable the data for sectoral purposes. NOTE: Due to lower response rates from certain entities working on specific sectors, the survey’s sectoral data (particularly with respect to impact on, and comparability of data across, sectors) is considered unreliable.

B. Takeaways from Survey Round 2

7. Round 2 of the survey reconfirms that US terminations have had major consequences for people in crisis around the world. Partners reported dramatic reductions in the number of people they are targeting because of the terminations, with at least 79 million people affected based on the survey responses.

1. Over 71 per cent of respondents who had received US terminations reported a reduction in services or assistance.
2. 44 per cent reported delayed implementation of planned activities.
3. Over 44 per cent reported a full cessation of operations.

8. The US terminations—together with cuts from other donors—have triggered a seismic contraction of humanitarian action. Respondents that received US termination notices reduced their geographic coverage by an average of 33 per cent, with NNGOs reporting geographic coverage reductions of 41 per cent.

1. Over 65 per cent of respondents that received US termination notices reported staff reductions or layoffs.
2. At least 12,000 staff contracts were reported to have been terminated.
3. 22 organizations reported closing/shutting down in the country for which they responded, while over 28 per cent of INGOs and 26 per cent of NNGOs receiving US terminations had to close at least one office within the country.
4. Over 29 per cent of survey respondents reported cuts/reductions from other donors, up to 45 per cent for refugee response partners.

9. Most respondents (67 per cent) who received US terminations had not received rescindments by 21 March, with NNGOs most affected:

1. NNGOs that received US funding reported a higher termination rate than the average terminations (75 per cent for NNGOs versus 68 per cent on average), and a lower proportion of rescindments (30 per cent for NNGOs versus 33 per cent on average).
2. Eighty per cent of responding women-led organizations and refugee-led organizations reported having received termination notifications.

10. The risk of reversing gains in quality, inclusive and accountable humanitarian action, especially for women and girls, has materialized:

1. Almost 76 per cent of respondents that had received US termination notices reported that this resulted in a reduction of delivery of life-saving assistance for women and girls.
2. Over 34 per cent indicated experiencing pushback on gender equality programming.
3. 37 per cent reported overall challenges in inclusion efforts.
4. 17 per cent of partners reported reducing PSEA and safeguarding measures.

11. National NGOs have been hardest-hit among humanitarian partners: In addition to the direct consequences outlined above, NNGOs constituted the majority of implementing partners reported to have been impacted by survey respondents (55 per cent). In addition, 41 per cent of respondents reported suspending partnerships with local actors.

12. The survey confirms that humanitarian coordination and information management (IM) have been impacted: For the 24 operations where cluster capacities were reported, a net loss of 96 fully dedicated cluster coordination staff is expected by June, while dedicated cluster IM capacity is expected to drop by 101. Beyond clusters:

1. NGO coordination has been significantly impacted, with INGO Forums reporting a 50 per cent reduction in staff capacity and NNGO Forums a 43 per cent reduction.
2. Over a third of respondents (35 per cent) highlighted that they had to reduce their coordination capacity and 15 per cent of them their IM capacity.
3. Twenty-five per cent of respondents indicated that they had reduced participation in coordination.

13. Sectoral impacts are difficult to analyse given the limitations of the data. However, in countries with the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC)¹ several trends appear to be emerging, pending further verification:

1. Protection—especially Gender-Based Violence—has been significantly defunded. Respondents working in protection reported amongst the highest proportions of terminated US funding, including for Housing, Land and Property (81 per cent), Child Protection (75 per cent), Gender-Based Violence (73 per cent) and Protection (62 per cent). Mine Action (38 per cent) was the only exception. Gender-Based Violence respondents reported the highest net loss of all protection components, with over $61 million in US funding terminated.
2. Multi-Purpose Cash (MPC) has been particularly impacted. Almost three quarters of MPC previously funded by the US was reported to have been terminated.
3. Health had the highest total reported reduction in funds (at over $86.5 million). This was followed by GBV ($61 million, as above), Food Security (over $60 million), and Water, Health, Sanitation and Hygiene ($48.5 million).