Policy Brief
Humanitarian Funding
Problem
Several budget structure
shortcomings affect the
quality of U.S. assistance
to vulnerable people.
For example, while U.S.
refugee assistance
spans the full course
of a crisis, assistance
for communities and
internally displaced
persons is far less
comprehensive and
funding levels are
much lower even when
needs are comparable.
Support for return
and recovery after a
humanitarian crisis is
often insufficient. The
U.S. makes generous in-
kind food contributions,
but U.S. emergency food
programs sometimes
lack sufficient flexibility
and suffer delays.
Authority for local and
regional purchase
of emergency food
assistance is extremely
limited, even when doing
so could improve impact.
www.InterAction.org
1400 16th Street, NW
Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
202-667-8227
January 2011
Priorities
Recommendations & Actions
A revitalized USAID and Department of State must be given the resources and structures
necessary to fully resource and support their humanitarian assistance mandates so they can
effectively and efficiently respond to growing global needs.
• Increase the Department of State’s Bureau for Refugees, Population and Migration
(PRM) Emergency Refugee Migration Assistance (ERMA) funding ceiling to $200 million
and speed up the approval process by allowing draw-downs to be certified by the Sec-
retary of State rather than the President.
• Reform the account mechanism for USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
(OFDA) to prevent new emergencies from diverting funds away from U.S. response to
protracted crises and from efforts to reduce the risk of future disasters.
• Increase OFDA’s overall funding to enable it to more comprehensively address pro-
tracted emergencies, reduce the risk of future disasters and help meet early recovery
needs, especially in relation to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and conflict-affected
individuals and host communities. Chart a path so that within five years, U.S. resources
provided for IDPs relative to the global caseload is on par with those the U.S. provides
for refugees.
• Provide OFDA and PRM with the capacity, authority and resources to provide multi-year
funding in appropriate settings.
• Seek increased flexibility in U.S. food aid programs through greater use of cash-based
emergency food assistance programs including local and regional purchasing mecha-
nisms where market conditions permit. Ensure that when in-kind U.S. commodities are
provided, the food is supplied efficiently, pre-positioned whenever possible and food
distribution is accompanied by diet and recipe education and supplemented with com-
plementary local foods when possible.
Results
By providing U.S. Government humanitarian and development assistance
experts with appropriate and quickly accessible and flexible funding, the U.S.
will be able to join with the international community in responding rapidly and
nimbly to emergencies as they occur. This will underscore the position of the
U.S. as a leader in effective assistance and a compassionate defender of vul-
nerable populations around the world.
Background
The Department of State’s Bureau for Population, Refu-
gees, and Migration (PRM) has the primary responsibility for
meeting the needs of refugees—individuals residing outside
the borders of their country of origin due to persecution
and conflict. PRM also programs funding for refugees who
have been resettled or granted asylum within the U.S. and
plays a key role in meeting the needs of internally displaced
persons (IDPs) in particular countries through its funding of
the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and other international
organizations. The USAID Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) uses its resources to meet the needs of
IDPs displaced within their country due to natural or man-
made disasters. OFDA also has primary responsibility within
USAID for disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities.
PRM can use the Emergency Refugee Migration Assis-
tance draw-down mechanism to access an additional $100
million in the case of an emergency that creates or impacts
a refugee population. This draw-down requires presidential
approval, which can slow the process considerably. The
Secretary of State has the contextual knowledge and the
judgment to determine if and when these funds should be
used and would be able to respond more quickly than the
President. It would make sense to shift draw-down approval
to the Secretary of State in order to allow PRM to react
more swiftly. Further, the $100 million ceiling has not been
increased for over a decade. As costs for these responses
have risen due to increases in the costs of relief supplies
and transportation, the ceiling should be increased to $200
million. In 2009, the House of Representatives in the State
Reauthorization bill increased the ceiling to $200 million;
the Senate did not act on this measure before the close of
the 111th Congress. However, the Senate Appropriations
Committee included in its FY2011 State, Foreign Opera-
tions Appropriations bill both the increase to the ceiling and
the change in the certification to the Secretary of State.
These actions show positive momentum and increasing
support for this modification.
OFDA responds to more than one hundred emergen-
cies worldwide each year. Many of these emergencies are
protracted crises in which life-saving needs have persisted
for years. Unfortunately, the structure of OFDA’s budget
prioritizes rapid-onset disaster response over other priori-
ties, leaving IDP assistance and DRR activities vulnerable
whenever there is a major new emergency. Following the
January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, OFDA redirected nearly
half of its regular budget to address needs there and sub-
sequently was forced to make reductions in most non-Haiti
programs in order to offset these expenditures. OFDA was
then forced to rely on a supplemental appropriation much
later in the fiscal year to recoup these unforeseen expenses,
and its non-Haiti programs suffered funding shortfalls and
uncertain prospects until the supplemental was passed.
While the commitment from both the Administration and
Congress to fully fund humanitarian accounts in the regu-
lar FY2010 appropriations process was commendable,
humanitarian needs continue to outstrip the resources pro-
vided in the regular budget process. In 2009 the total num-
ber of IDPs due to conflict rose to 27.1 million people: the
highest level since 1994. In places like Darfur, Sri Lanka,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia and Iraq,
conflict IDPs face many of the same challenges and needs
as refugees, including abysmal camp conditions, lack of
jobs and income, political marginalization, disease and
hunger. Worldwide, there are twice as many conflict IDPs
as refugees, yet the OFDA’s International Disaster Assis-
tance (IDA) account is funded at roughly half the level of
PRM’s Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account.
Humanitarian needs in protracted IDP crises require a sig-
nificant portion of OFDA’s annual resources, yet OFDA’s
small budget means that it cannot meet these needs in a
consistent or comprehensive manner.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA) reports that a further 50 million people have
been displaced by natural disasters. It is predicted that the
number of people affected by natural disasters will rise by
54 percent by 2015. While OFDA provides important sup-
port to DRR1 activities, the budget for such initiatives is very
limited relative to the scope of the current and anticipated
needs.
Although U.S. contributions of in-kind food aid com-
modities are generous in scale, U.S. emergency food pro-
grams need greater flexibility. In-kind food assistance can
be improved through increased efficiency, shorter deliv-
ery times and pre-positioning whenever possible. Use of
cash-based emergency food assistance tools that address
immediate consumption needs in line with market condi-
tions (local and regional procurement (LRP) programs and
voucher or cash transfer approaches, e.g.) is improving but
remains limited. In addition to better meeting immediate
needs of vulnerable populations, LRP promotes regional
market integration and supports surplus producers in adja-
cent areas. Sourcing grains locally also reinforces produc-
tion incentives for indigenous farmers. When local markets
are still functioning, voucher and cash transfer programs
provide a boost to the local economy while allowing hungry
populations access to local goods.
1 See Disaster Risk Reduction brief for more details.