The Help Localisation Facility (HLF) is a mechanism that funds Ukrainian civil society organisations through a grant programme funded by Germany’s Federal Foreign Office. One year in, 18 partners, and a fundamentally different approach to distributing humanitarian funding: local actors make grant decisions themselves, set their own priorities, and determine how much to invest in developing their own organisations. Gritt Richter, team lead of the HLF, spoke to Humanitarian Media Hub about how it works in practice.
Power, Not Just Funding
Localisation, as the HLF understands it, is not simply about transferring money. According to Richter, it concerns a systemic shift of decision-making authority from international actors to local and national organisations. “We have defined localisation as the process of shifting decision-making power and resources to local and national actors, recognising their expertise in leading humanitarian action,” she explains.
The HLF’s governance structure is built around two committees — a grants committee and a steering committee — both of which include direct representation from Ukrainian civil society. The steering committee sets the strategic framework: it was this body that decided to fund projects across the entire territory of Ukraine, rather than limiting scope to the UN Humanitarian Response Plan. The donor — the GFFO — also sits on the steering committee, but decisions are taken by consensus. The grants committee handles the selection of applications. To ensure decisions genuinely remain with the Ukrainian side, the HLF deliberately presents committees with more many eligible candidates as there are grants available. “When we could award four grants, the committee received double the number of organisations that could be eligible,” says Richter.
At the annual event marking one year of operations, partners singled out precisely this feature of the HLF: no pressure on the choice of programming direction. “They really said that we never tried to influence them and say, no, you should rather do this instead of that,” Richter noted.
7% on Top and the Right to Self-Investment
Every HLF partner automatically receives 7 percent of the grant amount for administrative costs — on top of the grant itself, with no negotiation required. More significantly, organisations may direct any portion of the grant towards strengthening their own institutional capacity. In theory, this could reach 50 to 60 percent.
“I was even deliberately provocative at the event: each partner can choose how much of the grant to use for organisational capacity strengthening. And even if that amount is 50 or 60 percent — this is allowed,” Richter recalls. The audience’s reaction did not surprise her: people asked how spending could then be monitored. The answer is straightforward — partners report on every portion spent, whether it amounts to 1 percent or 60.
Of the 18 funded organisations, only one chose not to use this option. The highest recorded figure was 16 percent of a grant directed towards the organisation’s own development. “I am really proud of that percentage, because organisations are often shy. They think they will be punished,” says Richter. The HLF deliberately encourages partners not to shy away from this instrument: investment in monitoring systems, fundraising diversification, or strategic development is not a departure from the humanitarian mission — it is a precondition for it.
The one parameter the HLF has not yet been able to change is grant duration. The maximum term currently stands at 12 months. “We know that we need to open up multi-year funding in the future,” Richter acknowledges. It remains one of the system’s constraints the team intends to address.
Read more:
A quarter of a million hryvnias a year and a cold house. How Ukrainians survived the winter
63,500 People and the First Data from the Field
The first 14 partners were approved in October 2025 and began work in December. Their combined target reach is planned for 63,500 people. Four additional organisations have just received approval from the grants committee in April 2026. One partner has already reported spending less on one activity and redirecting funds to another, which may ultimately increase the overall reach figures.
Operating near the front line demands constant adaptation. Some partners have been forced to shift their geographic areas of operation as the front moves — the HLF permits this without bureaucratic complications. “We cannot act differently. We need to respect human lives,” Richter says plainly, summing up the principle of flexibility.
The MEAL system (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, Learning) has been deliberately simplified compared with standard OCHA frameworks, where health alone can involve up to 90 indicators. The HLF has capped its system at 15 indicators per sector and three for organisational capacity strengthening. Partners select from the list and may add their own. The first complete data set is expected around June 2026.
Neutrality in Wartime: Where the Line Falls
One of the most difficult questions for the HLF is how to interpret the requirement for independence from military and political structures in the context of a full-scale war, where a significant part of civil society naturally intersects with defence efforts.
Richter draws a clear conceptual distinction between engaging with military actors and supporting military operations. An organisation providing psychological support or veteran reintegration services does not violate the humanitarian principle of neutrality. An organisation developing IT systems to enhance the military’s combat capabilities does. “I understand that every Ukrainian supports the armed forces because it is your country. But as a humanitarian fund, we need to draw that line,” she explains.
Over its first year, the HLF excluded only two or three organisations — those that were openly advocating for arms supplies. In all ambiguous cases, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis: the team checks social media pages, speaks to people, and gathers evidence. The document setting out clear eligibility criteria was itself produced in response to a request from the grants committee — partners wanted to understand the rules.
Read also:
3.9 million internally displaced people: what is happening to Ukrainian refugees within the country
Transparency as a Strategy for Trust
The HLF has attracted attention in Germany — and not only within humanitarian circles. The approach raises a genuine question: how is it possible to truly transfer decision-making to local actors within a system that has traditionally kept power with donors and international intermediaries? Scepticism exists alongside the interest.
“People who work in the sector know about the boundaries. So they ask: how can you even make it happen?” says Richter. The answer has been a commitment to transparency even in failure: when the HLF cannot offer partners a particular option due to donor constraints, it says so — and explains why. “Even if you cannot move in a certain direction, you need to be transparent. You cannot simply say “no, it’s not possible”. That is not partnership-like communication,” she emphasises.
Partners and steering committee members themselves have identified this openness as one of the mechanism’s key strengths. Richter does not minimise the systemic difficulties: “We are still functioning in a system that is often very rigid and inflexible. Unfortunately, we do not have the power to shift everything at once.”
The Next Step: From Pilot to Scale
The HLF in Ukraine is a pilot. The team is already working on handbooks for partners and its own staff, describing each stage of the process in detail: from application through to reporting. These documents are being written not only for current partners — they are being built with the scaling of the model to other countries in mind.
The internal reflection moment for the team has been named Evolve and Reflect. Its aim is not simply to implement processes, but to continuously question one’s own biases. “We need to get rid of some biases. It is a constant reflection and learning process,” says Richter.
Asked what she would say to other actors in the field, Richter answered with a single word: dare. “Without daring, even if the system places limits on you, nothing changes. You need to try, and only then will you know.”
Read also:
Why Ukrainians Are Donating Less and How to Restore Trust in Fundraising
