Responding to Displacement from Ukraine: Reflections on Funding in an Emergency

Responding to Displacement from Ukraine: Reflections on Funding in an Emergency

While funding in emergency may seem different than funding structural change in the long-term, there are in fact a lot of overlaps in terms of strategic thinking and decision-making.

5 reflections from EPIM’s Programme Director Milica Petrovic in a guest post for Inside Philanthropy on our Ukraine Response.

1) Money ≠ answers: We accepted that we did not and could not know yet how we should be prioritising our funding, and that organizations and communities operating on the ground knew best. And that is always how it should be.

2) Listen carefully and then fund: While the immediate urge in the philanthropic sector is to respond quickly to show presence and action, we found that in this case, waiting and watching was going to be more impactful. This is why we spent a lot of time “talking to the field”.

3) Build and invest in alliances: Much of the world of philanthropy is still premised upon binary and dependent (steering) relationships between donors and grantees. If we ever needed a reality check to show us how outdated this approach is, Ukraine is it.

4) Fund for the short term but build for the future: As one of our partners put it, “This is a marathon, not a speed race.” But funding for the long run does not have to mean long-term funding.

5) Don’t lose track of the big picture: We’ve tried to ensure that our funds in the Ukraine context also address the protection and inclusion needs of other displaced people, including non-Ukrainians displaced from Ukraine. Going forward, the philanthropic sector needs to consider how responding to displacement from Ukraine can help strengthen, improve, transform and scale Europe’s overall migration and asylum systems.

Read the entire piece here –