The Challenges of Emergency vs. Development Funding

Emergency funding is typically short-term, requiring frequent renewals and reapplications. Despite its urgency, it comes with significant bureaucratic requirements and strict compliance measures. Donors impose tight spending timelines, rigid earmarking, and extensive scrutiny to prevent fraud, especially in high-risk environments. Emergency funding also requires comprehensive assessments, detailed proposals, and frequent audits—often at a higher frequency than development funding due to the need for continuous justification in an ever-changing situation.

While both emergency and development funding require detailed proposals and compliance processes, emergency funding often presents additional challenges. The urgency of crises means organisations must implement projects rapidly while simultaneously meeting stringent donor requirements. This creates pressure to balance speed with accountability, forcing NGOs to navigate complex financial restrictions, rigid reporting demands, and intensive monitoring processes while ensuring aid is delivered effectively.

Additionally, humanitarian funding focuses on immediate survival rather than long-term resilience, typically covering a crisis response period of six to twelve months. Development funding, by contrast, aims for sustainability—addressing root causes of poverty, governance, and social change over several years. This misalignment makes it difficult for organisations to shift from immediate relief to long-term recovery and development.

NGOs also face structural constraints. Many build their operations around either emergency response or development work, with distinct skills, staffing, and operational models. Transitioning between these approaches is complex and resource-intensive. Furthermore, emergency funding can dry up as soon as a crisis fades from public attention, leaving NGOs scrambling to maintain programmes. Conversely, development funds take longer to secure and may not align with immediate community needs, creating financial uncertainty.

Donor priorities also shift between emergency and development contexts. In crises, donors expect organisations to deliver quick, high-visibility aid, whereas in development settings, the focus is on systemic, often less visible, change. Adapting to these shifting expectations can be challenging, particularly for local NGOs, which may not have the flexibility or resources to meet evolving donor demands.
alt text

How Start Local is Bridging the Gap

For NGOs to transition effectively between emergency and development work, they need adaptable funding mechanisms, strategic planning, and investment in staff capacity. Start Local is working to bridge this gap by supporting local NGOs to strengthen their institutional capacity, access funding, and navigate complex donor requirements. We are enabling frontline organisations to respond effectively to both immediate crises and long-term development needs.

A more holistic funding approach—one that allows NGOs to address both urgent humanitarian needs and sustainable solutions—will create stronger, more responsive humanitarian and development systems. Start Local is committed to ensuring that local actors have the tools, resources, and opportunities to lead in both contexts, strengthening their ability to serve their communities in times of crisis and beyond.

Our Blogs

Why supporting local NGOs is worth every penny

Why do Local NGOs struggle when a crisis strikes?