In a departure from traditional humanitarian relief, a new funding initiative in Ukraine is putting local communities and organizations at the center of aid decision-making. The Help Localization Facility (HLF), through its grants committee with Ukrainian civil society as decision-makers – a pilot project backed by international funding – has just awarded its first grants to 14 Ukrainian civil society groups, and its team lead Gritt Richter says this moment signals a “different way of working and deciding” in humanitarian aid. Under the HLF, local partners hold genuine power over how aid is prioritized and delivered, a shift that Richter describes as long overdue and “a big moment” for localization efforts in Ukraine.
Richter, who oversees the HLF’s operations, recalls the emotional kick-off workshop where those first 14 partner organizations were officially welcomed. “Their voices are heard,” she notes – not just in their own communities but even shaping higher-level decisions – and that is exactly the point. By formally sharing decision-making authority with Ukrainian NGOs and community leaders, the HLF aims to redefine the relationship between donors and local civil society. Instead of international agencies unilaterally deciding aid priorities, Ukrainian civil society is now in the driver’s seat. “Our partners have decision-making power in different instances… in the communities, but also in the governance of the HLF,” Richter explains, emphasizing that HLF’s structure elevates local expertise in determining what aid is needed and how. This power shift has instilled pride among the HLF team and partners, and hope that it can set a new precedent for humanitarian response in conflict-torn Ukraine and beyond.
Read also:
Charity in Ukraine 2025 — motivation, trust and new challenges
A Grantmaking Model Designed by and for Locals
From its inception, the HLF was built to hand over the reins to local actors. Richter points out that the fund’s steering committee itself includes members of Ukrainian civil society, ensuring local perspectives guide key decisions on where and what to fund. One fundamental choice that this committee made was to keep the HLF’s grant focus areas deliberately broad. “We have not dictated what projects should do,” says Richter, contrasting the HLF’s approach with typical donor programs that often predefine narrow sectors or activities. Instead, the HLF invited proposals under expansive themes like “safe, protected and healthy lives”, an umbrella that could cover everything from child welfare to health care to gender-based violence prevention or traditional shelter assistance. Other priority themes were defined similarly inclusive by the steering committee – for example, the education priority “Inclusive Learning and Education in Emergencies” might span formal schooling, vocational training, or community learning initiatives. By avoiding rigid categories, the HLF opened the door for a wide range of locally-advised solutions. “Our thematic areas are deliberately kept broad. As a results, the projects we are now funding span a wide range of initiatives,” Richter notes, underscoring that flexibility. This bottom-up grantmaking model empowers Ukrainian organizations to “suggest what to do” based on their on-the-ground knowledge, rather than tailoring their ideas to fit a donor’s preset agenda or the cluster system.
The HLF’s selection process was crafted to be as fair and locally-led as possible. Proposals from Ukrainian NGOs were first anonymized and then scored by the HLF grants committee, which consisted exclusively of Ukrainian experts, preventing any bias toward well-known organizations. Richter explains that the committee jointly defined the scoring criteria, reviewed proposals individually, and then discussed each proposal’s merits in detail. In the end, grants were awarded purely based on the quality of proposals and the needs they addressed – not on personal connections. “It was a completely anonymous process… really based on the quality of the proposal,” she says, describing it as a “very fair decision-making process led by Ukrainian civil society” that other funders might wish to learn from. By shifting power into the hands of a committee and removing the usual patronage dynamics, the HLF reinforces its core principle: trusting local civil society to know what is needed and to choose the best solutions.
Read also:
Safe schools and few psychologists — what communities in five regions need
Projects Spanning Regions and Needs
One striking outcome of the HLF’s first funding round is the geographical spread and diversity of the projects selected. Unlike many traditional aid efforts that concentrate on a few conflict hotspots, HLF-backed initiatives are “spread over the whole territory” of Ukraine. Needs exist far beyond the front-line regions, Richter notes – people displaced by fighting have resettled in many communities, and those areas also require support. By not limiting grants to locations featured in official humanitarian response plans, the HLF enabled underserved regions to benefit. Even northern Chernihiv, a region that some international maps overlooked for aid, found a place on HLF’s map of grantees. “Needs are everywhere. Needs are not only in frontline areas. They are also in areas where IDPs live,” Richter emphasizes, praising the steering committee’s courageous decision to fund wherever communities proposed worthy projects. The result is a “wide and well-balanced geographical spread” – something the HLF did not force, but that emerged organically once the call for proposals was left wide open.
The content of the funded projects is as varied as their locations. Because the HLF invited broad themes, local organizations put forward an array of initiatives reflecting what they see as pressing needs. Some partners are working on immediate relief – for instance, winterization efforts to help vulnerable people survive the coming cold. Others address educational gaps, launching inclusive education programs and even vocational skills training for those who lost livelihoods. There are projects bolstering “safe, protected and healthy lives,” a theme under which communities are tackling issues from healthcare access to protecting women and children. By allowing such breadth, the HLF has essentially mirrored the complexity of Ukraine’s humanitarian needs, funding grassroots responses that range from shelter and material aid to psychosocial support and future-oriented recovery activities. Richter finds this mix noteworthy compared to traditional aid: international donors often focus on a few predefined sectors, but here Ukrainian groups could “really carve out their ideas” without constraint.
Crucially, the HLF’s openness meant previously overlooked communities now have a voice. One example came up when discussing Chernihiv: despite heavy damage and ongoing security threats in that northern region, it had been off the UN’s priority radar. Thanks to HLF’s local-first approach, organizations from Chernihiv and many other areas “used their chance” – they applied with projects addressing local needs, and several were selected. Richter says the HLF never aimed for an even regional distribution per se, but by “making the floor open” to all, the grants naturally ended up covering a broad swath of Ukraine. This inclusive reach is a point of pride for the team, and a tangible example of how centering local voices can uncover needs that outsiders might miss.
Read also:
It’s a calling. How volunteering became part of doctor Natalia Kyrytsia’s life
Simplifying Aid and Investing in Local Capacity
For Ukrainian civil society organizations accustomed to onerous donor requirements, the HLF’s approach comes as a refreshing change. The initiative has tried to strip away unnecessary bureaucracy and simplify processes so that even smaller, volunteer-driven groups can access funding. “We have introduced a simplified, very short template” for regular narrative reports, Richter explains, noting that partner organizations only need to submit brief narrative updates every two months and a single comprehensive narrative report at the end of their project. By cutting down on paperwork and lengthy narratives, the HLF lets local humanitarians focus more on their work rather than filling out forms. Financial reporting still needs to meet international standards – a necessity since the money comes from government humanitarian budgets – but here too the HLF turns a burden into a learning opportunity. As Richter frames it, complying with these standards “is an opportunity for organizations to grow and later approach other donors with similar levels of complexity”. Many grassroots NGOs are gaining experience in professional financial management and controls, which will position them to handle larger grants in the future. In fact, the HLF specifically chose to back mostly smaller, emerging organizations, with the aim that successful participation will help them “get better and more funding” from other sources down the line.
Capacity strengthening is not an afterthought in this HLF model – it’s built into the grants themselves. The HLF encourages its partners to allocate a portion of their budgets to improve their own organizational capacities, such as staff training, better equipment, or systems development. Unlike many funders who cap overhead or capacity spending at 5–10%, HLF imposes no strict limit: partners were free to use as much as needed for capacity development – whether 5% or 15% or more. “Organizations in the HLF model can spend whatever they want on capacity strengthening… 5%, 20%, 30%. They decide,” Richter says, noting that this was a deliberate decision by the HLF steering committee to invest in the long-term strength of Ukraine’s civil society. In practice, most groups took up the offer. On average about 7% of the total pilot funds are going toward boosting organizational capacity, with individual projects devoting anywhere from a modest 1% up to around 15% of their budget for internal development needs. None of this was mandated – “it was an offer, not you have to use it,” Richter adds – but the enthusiastic uptake confirmed that local NGOs recognize the value of fortifying themselves for the future. By letting civil society actors decide how much to invest in their own growth, HLF has signaled an important trust in local judgment and a break from the tight restrictions of traditional grants.
To further lighten the administrative load, the HLF team has taken a supportive, partnership-based stance with their partners. “The philosophy of the HLF is to build a team… there is not an HLF team and partners on the other side. There is one team,” Richter explains. In practical terms, this means HLF staff – including finance and procurement experts – work closely with each organization, tailoring support to their specific needs and helping them reach the right level of compliance and effectiveness. If a village charity or a small local NGO has never navigated a formal donor due diligence process before, the HLF guides them through it step by step instead of simply demanding perfection. In fact, the HLF partnered with a Ukrainian platform called Philanthropy in Ukraine to carry out due diligence) in an empowering way. The experience was eye-opening for many participants. Many applicant organizations had “never done a very formal due diligence process” before engaging with the HLF. Yet even groups that ultimately did not receive a grant came away with something valuable: feedback on their organizational strengths and gaps, and guidance on documents or policies they might need to develop. Richter notes that “many have really appreciated” this learning aspect – a response so positive that it even surprised the team. By treating compliance and accountability as a joint learning journey rather than a box-ticking exercise, the HLF aims to bolster the overall capacity of Ukraine’s NGO sector. In Richter’s words, “that is also a part of building the Ukrainian civil society, ensuring local groups are stronger not just for the HLF but for any future humanitarian work”.
Read also:
Money follows the teacher. What the world thinks about how the new education funding mechanism will work
Balancing Trust, Accountability, and Transparency
With local partners empowered and bureaucracy pared down, how does the HLF ensure the money is used effectively? Richter acknowledges that this new way of working requires striking a careful balance between trust and accountability. The HLF’s answer will be to embed transparency and constant communication throughout the process. For example, rather than imposing top-down controls, the HLF engages in a “constant dialogue between the team and the partner” – from proposal development to project implementation. This proactive communication means potential issues are surfaced early. “We listened in the dialogue when we first met potential partners, we listened while they developed the proposals,” Richter says of the lead-up phase, explaining that close interaction helped the HLF and the applicants spot risks and address concerns together. Once projects starts, that dialogue will continue with frequent check-ins (the short progress updates) and an openness to adapt plans if conditions change. In war-torn Ukraine, such flexibility is essential. If security deteriorates in a project’s area, the HLF will not rigidly hold partners to their original plan. “If they cannot work in the region anymore, we will not ask back our funds,’” Richter insists. Partners are allowed to shift or modify activities if necessary, amongst others for safety reasons, because “security goes first”. The focus is on achieving humanitarian goals rather than sticking to paperwork. By being responsive and flexible, the HLF maintains accountability for results while acknowledging the volatile environment its partners operate in.
Transparency is also built into the HLF’s own operations and evaluation. Richter reveals that an independent research team from the Center for Humanitarian Action (CHA), a German think tank, is observing the HLF’s experiment in real time. The researcher attend HLF committee meetings and workshops as silent observers to gauge whether the fund is truly “pushing local leadership” and following through on its promises. The HLF will be measured against several indicators – from how meaningfully local committee members participate in decisions to how fair and accessible even the unsuccessful applicant organizations perceive the process to be. The think tank’s evaluation is looking at details like meeting minutes and action points: do HLF staff actually act on feedback from the committees, or do good suggestions get ignored once the meeting ends? By “evaluating” the HLF in this way, the initiative hopes to learn and adjust constantly as needed. Richter is candid that the HLF’s pilot phase (set to run through the end of next year 2026) might reveal imperfections. “I expect also criticism, because I don’t think that we got it all right,” she admits, describing the effort to localize aid as an ongoing journey of “unlearning” old habits and navigating a “messy middle” of complexity. What gives her confidence is having clear “north star” goals – principles like shifting power and practicing shared governance – to guide the HLF through inevitable challenges. Maintaining open communication and a willingness to adapt are part of those principles. As she notes, not every committee recommendation can be implemented instantly, but being honest about constraints and “living a respectful communication” within the partnership is the key. In practice, this has meant sometimes telling partners that an idea “we have to pause for next round” but ensuring they know their input truly matters and will shape future decisions. Through such transparency and respect, the HLF is building a new kind of accountability – one based not on dictating terms from above, but on mutual trust, continuous learning, and shared responsibility for outcomes bottom up.
Read also:
How the Ukrainian Leadership Academy is shaping a new generation of conscious and active citizens of Ukraine
Challenges and Opportunities in Shifting Power Dynamics
Changing the way humanitarian aid works is not without its difficulties. Richter reflects that one of the hardest adjustments for any donor organization is to let go of control. “We are so used to working according to certain structures,” she says, that handing decision power to others requires a profound “shift of mindset”. For the HLF team (and its backers), this meant accepting that they would pose a lot of questions but not predetermine the answers. “You put a question on the table and you don’t know what the decision will be. Because you are not setting the tone,” Richter describes the experience of yielding real authority to the committees, noting that it can involve discomfort due to the lack of certainty upfront. Additionally, balancing speed and inclusivity was a challenge – extensive dialogue with local actors takes time, and some traditional humanitarians worried that involving more people in decisions could slow the overall process. However, Richter firmly believes the benefits outweigh the costs. “A genuine dialogue c time, but it’s worthwhile,” she argues, noting that investing time to collaborate with local partners ultimately makes aid more effective. In fact, the HLF’s experience so far suggests that sharing power can avert certain problems altogether. For instance, because project plans were decided by the Ukrainian partners themselves, the HLF avoids the pitfall of imposing impractical ideas from afar. “We don’t decide on a project… if I did, the partners would probably say, ‘My God, how should I make this happen?’” Richter laughs, pointing out how easy it is for outsiders to misjudge local realities. By entrusting decisions to those living the context, the HLF pre-empts that kind of disconnect and the complications it would bring.
Winning over skeptics in the aid industry has been another part of the journey. Early on, some traditional actors raised eyebrows at the notion of a fund operating out of a Ukrainian-German hub (the HLF team works from Kyiv and Bonn) while giving Ukrainian NGOs so much autonomy. Would it be feasible, or just “too complicated” in practice? There were also natural anxieties about risk: shifting power meant HLF had also to rely on untested local groups and trust their judgement, which not all donors are comfortable doing. The HLF’s strategy so far to overcome doubts has been to show results and learn publicly. For example, by having an external researcher document the HLF’s meetings and progress, the initiative created a transparent record that both champions and skeptics can review. The fact that the HLF’s first grant cycle went from launch to funding decisions relatively smoothly – and produced strong projects on the ground – is beginning to allay fears that localization is merely idealistic talk. “We have already made it visible in the grantmaking model that we want the organization to be strengthened,” Richter says, highlighting the HLF’s early accomplishments like the robust capacity development support built into its grants. Every success story from a local partner – whether to improve access to safe learning environments in Sumy or strengthening the resilience of water or medical facilities by installing solar energy systems in different oblasts across Ukraine – serves as evidence that local NGOs can deliver when trusted with resources and responsibility.
Richter also emphasizes that this pilot is as much a learning opportunity for international humanitarians as for Ukrainian organizations. “Who is learning more? Probably us,” she admits, reflecting on how HLF’s co-creation process has challenged her own assumptions. As a foreign aid professional, she recognizes that she cannot ever fully understand Ukraine the way locals do – “I have not grown up here… we have the feeling we understand, but we don’t,” she says frankly. This humility underpins the HLF’s approach. It turns the power shift into a mutual growth experience: international and also national Ukrainian HLF staff learn to facilitate and listen, while Ukrainian civil society members learn to lead large-scale programs within an international framework. The “true partnership” the HLF strives for is one where both sides adjust and build something new together. “Partnership building [comes] from both sides,” Richter agrees, meaning that local and international actors both have changes to make in order to meet as equals. For the internationals, it means relinquishing control and trusting local expertise; for the Ukrainian groups, it means stepping up to handle greater responsibility and engaging in candid dialogue. So far, this give-and-take seems to be working. “We really try to discuss, to shape the HLF together. And that is for me true partnership,” Richter says, describing the HLF’s ethos. The hope is that through such efforts, the project not only overcomes its own hurdles but also chips away at the wider skepticism that has stalled the localization agenda globally.
Read also:
Resale or New Build: What Do Displaced People Choose in Rivne
Scaling Up and Looking Ahead
With an initial budget of nearly €11 million (funded by the German Federal Foreign Office, GFFO) for its pilot phase, the HLF has made a strong start in Ukraine. But Richter is already looking to the future, mindful that transforming humanitarian aid will require sustained effort and expansion. She makes clear that the team intends to continue and grow the fund beyond this first iteration. “Our aim is still to expand in Ukraine. We don’t want to be just a one-off,” she says, though she acknowledges that securing further funding in the current global landscape is challenging. Efforts are underway to extend the HLF’s mandate with additional donor support. Richter remains optimistic that the compelling early results will attract other funders. Importantly, the HLF team is proceeding with a dual vision: they focus on refining the model in Ukraine even as they explore its replicability elsewhere. “All we are doing now here in Ukraine will set the tone for scaling,” Richter explains, describing how her team documents lessons and tweaks processes with an eye on the bigger picture. “We invest a lot in learning with the team… always two layers: make it better for Ukraine, but also think about how that would look like in a different context,” she adds. This forward-looking approach means that every procedure the HLF creates – from grant applications to committee structures – is developed not only to suit Ukraine’s context, but also to serve as a template for localized funding in other crisis settings. Whether in future post-conflict recovery projects in the middle-east or community-led relief efforts in African disasters, the HLF experiment could inform similar shifts in power.
Richter envisions the HLF as a trailblazer for the humanitarian system at large. Ukraine, with its strong and outspoken civil society even amidst war, is the ideal incubator for localization done right. “Especially in the context of Ukraine, where we have a very strong, vocal civil society… that could lead the way for other countries in difficult situations,” she observes. If it succeeds here, the model can inspire confidence that locally-led aid is possible anywhere. In fact, catalyzing broader change is built into HLF’s objectives. “One clear aim of our theory of change is that we serve as a model for other organizations,” Richter says. “We want others to feel encouraged to say, ‘We could try this too and do things differently.’” By demonstrating a viable alternative to business-as-usual – with evidence to show for it – the HLF hopes to nudge more donors and international NGOs to hand over decision-making power and resources to local actors.
At the same time, Richter warns that failing to pursue localization has real costs. If the aid sector does not change its top-down ways, “many people in need will not get any help,” she cautions bluntly. Under the status quo, international organizations still control the bulk of funding, which means countless community-based groups at the front lines remain under-resourced. Those local groups are often closest to crisis-affected populations, so when they lack support, vital assistance doesn’t reach those who need it most. Moreover, the patience of reformers is wearing thin. “If the system doesn’t change… actors who have been deeoply engaged in advancing localization might eventually say, I no longer have the time – or space – for this,” Richter notes, alluding to growing frustration with years of grand promises and slow progress. In short, persisting with old power imbalances could alienate both the givers and receivers of aid.
For now, the HLF team is focused on proving that another way is possible. The coming months will see the first cohort of HLF-funded projects unfold across Ukraine – from the far north to the southwestern hills – addressing an array of community-identified needs. As these local initiatives take shape, they carry the weight of something larger: the idea that humanitarian aid works better when those living through the crisis have a genuine say in the response. Richter’s vision is that a few years from now, the HLF will have grown and spawned imitators, and the term “localization” will no longer be a buzzword but standard practice in Ukraine’s recovery. “Let’s hope we can sustain the HLF, get more funding, and put new learnings into practice,” she says. If all goes well, Ukraine’s locally-led aid experiment will not just help communities rebuild today – it will also permanently reshape the way aid is done tomorrow, in Ukraine and around the world.
Read also:
World AIDS Day. Why Ukrainians aged 55+ are at risk and how the war has changed the fight against HIV
