Evaluation of The Start Fund Design & Build Phase

EvaLuaTIon oF thE Start fund
dESign&buildphaSE
A U T H O R : a N d y f e a T h e r S T o N e | F U N D A N A Ly S I S : T a S N e e m m o w j e e | j a N u a r y 2 0 1 5
d o N o r S | pa r T N e r S
UK aid branding guidance
June 2014
The STarT NeTwork haS aN

ambiTiouS viSioN which
emphaSizeS The imporTaNce
of embraciNg diverSiTy iN
humaNiTariaN reSpoNSe,
deceNTraliSiNg power from
The global To The local aNd
leveragiNg The poTeNTial of
workiNg collaboraTively
03 | Evaluation of thE Start fund dESign & build phaSE | January 2015
execuTive Summary
1 | iNTroducTioN
The Start Fund is a multi-donor pooled funding mechanism
that consists of a network of international non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and provides small-scale funding (up to
300k per organisation over a 45 day window) to frontline NGOs. It
seeks to complement the existing humanitarian financing system
by focusing on initial rapid response to low-profile, underfunded
emergencies. The first phase of the Start Fund, April to December
2014, represents a design and build period where the Fund is
open for allocations to crisis alerts, whilst simultaneously the
infrastructure and Fund management processes are being tested
and refined.
PurPose of the evaluation and methodology
The main objective of the evaluation is to assess the performance
of the Start Fund during the 9-month design period to draw
lessons on areas for improvement in order to inform the ongoing development of the Start Fund. The overall purpose of the
evaluation is for learning, especially to support the scale-up of
the Fund. The evaluation used a mix of methods, both qualitative
and quantitative, to answer the evaluation questions which
included interviews with the Start Team, Start Network members
and external informants, a document review and analysis of Start
Fund data and key performance indicators, two country case
study visits (to Nairobi to discuss the two Somalia activations and
to Bangladesh to discuss the floods activation). The evaluator
also participated in the Start Network Assembly, Donor Forum
and Allocation Committee strategy meeting.
2 | evaluaTioN fiNdiNgS
relevance
In the first nine months a Start Fund Alert was raised 19 times,
and the Fund has been activated on 12 occasions. While a review
of the activations shows that the Fund had broad relevance across
different types of emergencies in a range of countries, it found
that there was greatest consensus on responses to mediumsized emergencies (natural and man-made) and least consensus
on responses to slow onset crises. The Fund failed to identify or
respond to a localised or small-scale crisis (such as mud-slides,
fires or building collapse). The Fund demonstrated its ability to
activate in an anticipatory capacity which has the potential to
further increase its speed of response.
Given the swift activation of the fund, it offers a good fit with some
of the UN pooled funds (ERF, CHF and CERF), which take longer to
activate but often disburse larger funding envelopes to a broader
range of organisations for longer project timeframes. The focus
of the Start Fund on medium-sized humanitarian emergencies is
also a good fit with both the CERF (which tends to focus on larger
crises although is also activated for spikes in chronic crises)
and with bilateral funding instruments such as DFIDs RRF, which
disburses larger grants to international NGO partners responding
to large crises.
effectiveness
With only a small number of minor exceptions, the Start Fund
has consistently met or exceeded its KPIs. For a fund that has
only been established for nine months and which has set itself
an ambitious target for its activation that exceeds the aspirations
of other pooled funds, the Start Team and members have
performed well in consistently meeting their performance targets.
The agility of the Start Fund in responding to crises has filled a
gap that many would have considered beyond the reaches of a
membership-based, peer-led, global, pooled fund. Knowing that
timely response to humanitarian needs can play a significant role
in saving lives and supporting livelihoods, the evidence suggests
that the Start Fund is positioned to have impact at acute stages
of a crisis.
The process of alert, activation, allocation and project selection
are peer-managed and have largely proved themselves to be
fit for purpose and rigorously implemented. There is scope to
better prepare country-level staff for the decentralised project
selection process, a need to simplify and strengthen the project
assessment criteria and to improve quality assurance. However,
the 12 activations have been successful in meeting timeliness
standards across a range of interventions. The fact that a learning
component is hard-wired into the Start Fund offers an opportunity
for members to participate in an exciting learning agenda.
For such a young entity, the governance functions are welldeveloped and appear to work effectively, albeit with some space
for improvements on closing the feedback loop between the
different Fund management, selection and learning committees
and with a need for greater clarity about how the Donor Forum
can be best used to support the strategic direction of the Start
Fund. One area where progress is required is in articulating a risk
management and control framework, which will be necessary to
achieve the Funds ambitions of growth and independence.
collaboration, decentralisation and diversity
The Start Network has an ambitious vision which emphasizes
the importance of embracing diversity in humanitarian response,
decentralising power from the global to the local and leveraging the
potential of working collaboratively. In mobilising the 19 members
and their network of 6,700 partners to respond in a timely way, the
Start Fund has shown some measure of success in role-modelling
the changes it is seeking in the wider humanitarian community.
The memberS of The STarT

NeTwork aNd Team have
proved worThy cuSTodiaNS
of The fuNdiNg eNTruSTed To
Them by iriSh aid aNd dfid
The use of peer review mechanisms, the decentralisation of

key decision-making processes and a focus of members on
accountability to crisis-affected populations are all consistent
with these values. However, there are important decisions to be
made about how to diversify the Start Funds membership and
how far to stretch decentralisation. The location of the Fund in the
UK and the comparatively large number of UK-based members
has led to misperceptions about it being a British rather than
global fund an issue that needs to be addressed if the network
is to achieve its aspirations to change the humanitarian system.
sustainability
Some of the most significant challenges for the Start Fund are
related to its future direction and how it will seek to balance the
need to expand its donor base while increasing the diversity of
its members. While it has been grappling with these strategic
challenges, the humanitarian financing landscape has been
changing with a growing number of NGO pooled funds which have
the potential to both complement and compete with the Start Fund.
Despite the challenges, the commitment that has been made
by DFID which includes a significantly larger contribution for the
coming year will already push the Start Team and members into
unchartered territory, and although plans have been put in place
to maintain the Start Funds impressive record, there will continue
to be the need to learn and adapt as new challenges arise.
3 | coNcluSioN aNd recommeNdaTioNS

The members of the Start Network and Team have proved worthy
custodians of the funding entrusted to them by Irish Aid and DFID.
While the fund size has been modest in comparison with other
pooled funds, there is ample evidence of diligent fund oversight
and management which has delivered some impressive results
both in terms of what can be achieved through collaborative
action and in terms of responding to humanitarian needs. That
is not to say that proof of concept will guarantee the future
success of the Fund. The evaluation has highlighted a number of
issues both strategic and operational that will be important
to address to strengthen Fund processes and outcomes in the
future. Looking forwards, the evaluation has highlighted a number
of challenges ahead, and while it can offer recommendations for
how the Fund can position itself to navigate these, it will only
be through galvanising the collective support of the membership
and being able to breathe life into its vision that it will stand the
greatest likelihood of long-term success.
Priority recommendations
1 | STreNgTheNiNg aNTicipaTioN
[ref: p11] Anticipation is an area that
the Start Fund has the potential to
strengthen given the operational reach of
its 19-members and the resources that
already exist in the Fund. By participating
in the Early Warning Early Action Group
and by integrating its analysis into its
decision-making processes, the Fund could
improve the potential for early action as
well as strengthening its complementarity
with the Central Emergency Response Fund.
2 | coordiNaTiNg wiTh oTher
Ngo-led pooled fuNdS [ref. p13]
The similarities between the Canadian
Humanitarian Assistance Fund and the
Start fund suggests that there would be
added value in establishing more formal
coordination mechanisms between the two
funds which should include at a minimum,
notification of alerts and activations.
With the possibility of similar funds being
established in the future, and given the
emphasis placed by the Start Fund on
collaboration, there is scope for the Start
Team to role-model this.
3 | evaluaTiNg projecT ouTpuTS
aNd ouTcomeS [ref. p16] Given the
focus of this evaluation on process and
governance issues, there is a keen interest
from the members to look in more detail
at project outputs and outcomes. Despite
the methodological complexities, by
commissioning a field-focused evaluation
which prioritises project review and which
focuses on interviews with field staff,
partners and crisis-affected communities,
it should be possible to build up a more
detailed picture of changes that can be
attributed to the disbursement of timely
Start Funding. Furthermore, if a range of
different activations were selected (e.g.
rapid/slow onset/spikes etc.), then it may
be possible to strengthen the evidence
base for the types of activation where the
Fund can have greatest effect.
4 | meaSuremeNT of fuNd
leveragiNg [ref. p17] The key
Performance indicator on fund leveraging
is poorly articulated and exaggerates the
funding that is raised as a consequence

of the Start Funding received by members.
If fund leveraging is considered to be an
important metric, then members should
only report funds that were raised as a
direct consequence of the Start Funding. An
accompanying question which would assist
in strengthening the evidence base for the
45-day activation period would be whether
members received follow-on funding for the
specific Start Funded intervention.
5 | delegaTiNg allocaTioN
proceSSeS To The STarT Team
[ref. p19] With a view to a future Start
Fund with more members and a larger
fund size that is likely to be activated more
frequently, some concern was raised about
the mechanism to trigger a delegated
process. One means of strengthening
this would be to more clearly outline the
dimensions and complexity of a crisis
in the alert note. Requiring the alerting
agency to outline the crisis against a predetermined set of criteria (which could
include the number of people/refugees/
displaced persons affected, the geographic
area affected, the political complexity
of the crisis, security/risk rating) would
simplify the identification of crises which
may lend themselves to Start Team
oversight.
6 | maiNTaiNiNg The iNdepeNdeNce
of The STarT fuNd [ref. p20] It
is important that the Start Network
communicates and defends the
independence of the Fund, ensuring
that activations are consistent with the
commitment of its members to the
humanitarian imperative.
7 | QueSTioNiNg The relevaNce of
The STarT fuNd for reSpoNSe To
Slow oNSeT criSeS [ref. p20] The
evaluation has found that the use of the
Fund to respond to slow onset crises has
been contentious among the members
and some of the results have been
disappointing. The Allocation Committee
should either make changes to the process
for responding to these crises to allow
additional time for analysis and project
development to strengthen the relevance

of the interventions or it should concede
that these response types are not best
served by the Start Fund.
8 | STreNgTheNiNg The imparTialiTy
of The projecT SelecTioN proceSS
[ref. p22] To strengthen the impartiality
of the project selection process, it is
recommended that the questions under
each of the criteria are re-formulated and
re-phrased so they are less open-ended and
lend themselves more easily to applying a
score. While it is understood that project
selection cannot and should not be a
quantitative exercise, given that scoring is
an important part of the project selection
process, it is in the interests of transparency
and accuracy that the process provides the
greatest assurance of consistent usage
across all of the members.
9 | STreNgTheNiNg QualiTy
aSSuraNce iN The projecT
SelecTioN proceSS [ref. p22]
The project application template and
peer review scoring process should be
revised so that members are required
to articulate relevant standards and to
routinely interrogate these as part of the
project selection process. This should be
complemented with a field-based review
that is triggered after a specific time
period or number of activations. This would
provide evidence to support the assertion
that the peer review process is sufficiently
robust to drive up programme quality.
10 | cloSiNg The gap iN The
goverNaNce feedback loop [ref.
p24] The Allocation Committee (which
is also the mandated fund management
body), Project Selection Committee and
Learning and Evaluation Committee
require a regular structured dialogue
in order to close the feedback loop to
maximise the potential of strengthening
the Start Fund. Given that the Allocation
Committee meets four times over the
course of the year, it is recommended
that at least one of these meetings is
given over to a formal review of learning
about the Fund process.
11 | clarifyiNg The role of

The doNor forum [ref. p28]
Given that Start Fund members and
donors have a common interest in
having a well-managed and well-resourced
Fund and have a shared motivation to
drive forward the ambitious strategy for
growth, there would be considerable
benefit to more clearly articulating a
terms of reference for the Donor Forum.
This should clarify its purpose and
function, describe its links to other
governance bodies, outline its membership
and establish a standing agenda for its
meetings. Included in the agenda should
be an annual discussion about progress
made towards achieving the vision, a
biannual review of the performance and
discussion about risk management. It is
also recommended that at a minimum
representation from each of the Board,
Assembly and Allocation Committee
(given its current Start Fund management
role) is formalised.
12 | eSTabliShiNg a riSk
maNagemeNT aNd coNTrol
framework [ref. p29] In outlining
key risks and articulating a summary risk
mitigation plan, the Start Fund has begun
to identify some of the risk management
infrastructure that will need to be put in
place as the Fund prepares to expand.
In making progress in this, it will be
important to negotiate a framework
that will meet donor needs for risk
management but that is also consistent
with the Start Networks vision of having
a diverse membership which includes
international and national NGOs.
13 | agreeiNg The fuTure of The
fuNd [ref. p33 & 34] It is recommended
that the Start Network produce a
three-year strategy which includes a road
map and tactics for the Fund that are
consistent with the Networks Declaration
of Intent and which provides clarity over
the vexed issue of vison-led versus
donor-led growth. This would offer a
powerful tool to build consensus and
galvanise support of the membership
and Donor Forum.
coNTeNTS
execuTive Summary
Table of coNTeNTS
liST of abbreviaTioNS
ackNowledgemeNTS
03
06
07
07
1 | iNTroducTioN aNd purpoSe of The evaluaTioN

1.1 introduction
1.2 Purpose of the evaluation
1.3 methodology
1.4 limitations
1.5 structure of the report
08
08
08
08
09
09
2 | backgrouNd To The STarT NeTwork aNd fuNd

2.1 the start network
2.2 the start fund
2.3 an analysis of relevant funding instruments
10
10
10
13
3 | relevaNce
3.1 classifying crises understanding the role of the start fund in responding to crises
3.2 an analysis of the complementarity of the start fund with other humanitarian funds
15
15
17
4 | effecTiveNeSS
4.1 analysis performance metrics and project results
4.2 analysis of process effectiveness
4.3 the potential for learning
4.4 start team and network member resourcing
4.5 donor engagement and participation in the strategic direction of the fund
4.6 risk management and control framework
19
19
22
27
29
30
31
5 | The coNTribuTioN of The fuNd To advaNciNg collaboraTioN,

deceNTraliSaTioN aNd diverSiTy
5.1 collaboration
5.2 decentralisation
5.3 diversity
32
32
33
35
6 | The fuTure SuSTaiNabiliTy of The fuNd

6.1 the challenge of achieving a sustainable start fund
6.2 fit for the future? the implications of fund growth on the management model
36
36
36
7 | coNcluSioN
7.1 Priority recommendations
38
38
aNNexeS
annex 1: Summary terms of reference for the evaluation
annex 2: evaluation participants
annex 3: re-organised evaluation framework
annex 4: start fund timeframe diagram and process
annex 5: Proposed modifications to the project selection criteria
annex 6: comparison of pooled fund risk management, quality assurance and control
40
45
46
47
48
50
abbreviaTioNS
ac
acapS
acf
cbha
cerf
chaf
chf
dac
dec
decaf
dfid
di
drc
echo
erf
fSl
fTS
hc
hcT
iaSc
idp
imc
irc
jNa
kpi
l&ec
Ngo
ocha
oecd
pSc
rapid
rr
rrf
rTe
ufe
uN
uSaid
waSh
allocation committee
assessment capacities Project
action against hunger
consortium of british humanitarian agencies
central emergency response fund
canadian humanitarian assistance fund
common humanitarian fund
development assistance committee
disasters emergency committee
disasters emergencies committees accountability framework
department for international development
development initiatives
democratic republic of congo
european commission humanitarian aid and civil Protection department
emergency response fund
food security & livelihoods
financial tracking system
humanitarian coordinator
humanitarian country team
inter-agency standing committee
internally displaced Person
international medical corps
international rescue committee
Joint needs assessment
Key Performance indicator
learning and evaluation committee
non-governmental organisation
office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs
organisation for economic cooperation and development
Project selection committee
responding to Pakistans internally displaced (fund)
rapid response (cerf funding Window)
rapid response facility
real time evaluation
under-funded emergencies (cerf funding Window)
united nations
united states agency for international development
Water, sanitation and hygiene
ackNowledgemeNTS
The Start Team have been exceptionally helpful in supporting requests for documentation and
information and have also been extremely candid in their participation in the evaluation. My special
thanks are due to Matt Kletzing, who has been extremely diligent in supporting the evaluation
process. I would also like to thank Tasneem Mowjee who undertook the analysis of humanitarian
funding instruments. Muslim Aid was particularly helpful in providing logistics and administrative
support for the case study trip to Bangladesh.
1 | iNTroducTioN aNd purpoSe of The evaluaTioN
1.1 | introduction
1.2 | PurPose of the evaluation

that consists of a network of International NGOs and provides
small-scale funding (up to 300k per organisation over a 45 day
window) to frontline NGOs. It seeks to complement the existing
humanitarian financing system by focusing on initial rapid
response to low-profile, underfunded, emergencies. The first
phase of the Start Fund, April to December 2014, represents a
design and build period where the Fund is open for allocations to
crisis alerts, whilst simultaneously the infrastructure and Fund
management processes are being tested and refined.
The main objective of the evaluation is to assess the performance

of the Start Fund during the nine month design period to draw
lessons on areas for improvement in order to inform its on-going
development. The evaluation asks questions about the Funds
performance and covers its processes and some programmatic
issues. It also assesses the extent to which the Fund has been
successful in advancing the Start Networks vision of shifting
the power. The evidence generated will be used by the Start
Team, the Start Fund committees and the Start Network Board
to improve the Start Fund. The overall purpose of the evaluation
is for learning, especially to support the scale-up of the Fund (the
full terms of reference is reproduced in annex 1).
1.3 | methodology
The evaluation used a mix of methods, both qualitative and
quantitative, to answer the evaluation questions. These included
the following approaches.
ACTIvITy
DETAILS
incePtion rePort
An inception report was prepared which outlined in detail the approach to be used and specific
methodologies for the evaluation. It identified key informants and the support required by the evaluator
throughout the process. It served as an evaluation guide and accountability tool between the evaluation
team and the evaluation manager.
intervieWs
With the start
team, netWorK
members
and external
informants
A set of guided conversations were conducted to feed back on the performance of the Fund, to identify
and analyse specific issues and to provide a briefing for the field work. External stakeholders were
identified and interviews were conducted both prior to and after the field work. Interviews were also
conducted with Start Network members in selected countries that have received Start Fund allocations
in a range of contexts. A set of questions was developed to guide the interviews which were modified to
meet the needs of different stakeholder groups (evaluation participants are listed in annex 2).
Performance
and oPerational
document revieW
and data analysis
A document review and analysis was undertaken which included literature on Start Network, Start Fund
policy and guidance documents, humanitarian financing evaluations and policy documents and external
reports on humanitarian anticipation and response. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for the Start Fund
were analysed against performance targets. A comparative analysis was also conducted of measures of
pooled fund effectiveness from a range of global and country-based humanitarian pooled funds.
fieldWorK
ParticiPation
in start fund
meetings
Two case study countries (Kenya for the two Somalia activations and Bangladesh) were visited as part
of the review to offer an opportunity to gather field experience of the Start Fund from its members and
external informants to strengthen the evidence base of the evaluation. The field work did not seek to
assess the outputs or outcomes of Start Funded projects, which would have gone beyond the ToR of the
evaluation. Rather they sought to assess the relevance of the Fund, analyse its effectiveness, assess
collaboration and partnership and elicit opinions on the future of the Start Fund.
The evaluator participated in the Start Network Assembly, Donor Forum and Allocation Committee
strategy meeting. The purpose of this was twofold: to strengthen the evaluation findings and to provide
real-time feedback on some of the early analysis.
1.4 | limitations
1.5 | structure of the rePort
The ToR is extremely broad and there was understandable

interest by members in participating in the evaluation. As a
consequence the interview phase of the evaluation lasted longer
than was anticipated. To compound this, the allocation of days for
the exercise was significantly reduced which has limited the time
available for the evaluation team to fulfil the terms of reference.
The ToR for the evaluation outlined a large number of questions,
and it was necessary to re-organise them according to evaluation
criteria (the re-organised evaluation framework is reproduced in
annex 3). While the ToR outlined an evaluation of the first six
months of the Start Fund, where relevant data was available, the
evaluation expanded this to include the first nine months.
Section 1 of this report provides an overview of the purpose of

the evaluation and the methodology. Section 2 introduces the
Start Network and Fund and locates it in the wider humanitarian
financing landscape. Section 3 seeks to determine the relevance
of the Start Fund to humanitarian response and assess its added
value and complementarity with other funds. Section 4 assesses
the effectiveness and performance of the Start Fund in its first
nine months. Section 5 analyses the contribution of the Start Fund
to advancing the vision of the Network. Section 6 assesses the
extent to which evidence from the design and build phase supports
future scale-up and discusses the implications of a scale-up on
the Start Fund Team and wider Network. Section 7 concludes the
evaluation and outlines primary and secondary recommendations.
Recommendations have been highlighted in bold where they occur
in the report and the priority recommendations have been extracted,
summarised and presented in the final section of the report and
the Executive Summary.
2 | backgrouNd To The STarT NeTwork aNd fuNd

figure 1
STarT NeTwork declaraTioN of iNTeNT our collecTive viSioN1

we collaboraTe becauSe The chaNge ThaT iS demaNded of uS caNNoT be
achieved by aNy SiNgle orgaNiSaTioN aloNe. TogeTher, STarT NeTwork
ageNcieS caN TraNSform criSiS reSpoNSe. we will Shape a SySTem ThaT iS:
diverSe: The humanitarian system must increase its diversity and tolerance of alternative
approaches. We aim for a humanitarian ecosystem that contains organisations of different
sizes, types, cultures and modes of response, in a state of continual experimentation and growth.
deceNTraliSed: We aim to shift the centre of humanitarian gravity, so that decision making and
leadership take place at the front line and affected people are empowered to improve their lives.
Everyone has a contribution to make to reduce the risk of crises, whether it is at a global or local
level, but we need to ensure that local ownership and capacity driven humanitarian response.
collaboraTive: Crises in the future will demand humanitarian response that involves
many more people and organisations than today. We will need to do different things, and work
together in new ways. Relationships across boundaries national, cultural, organisational
will be key in rising to this challenge. We will make collaboration central to our action and not
allow competition between our agencies to interfere with our common objectives.
2.1 | the start netWorK
2.2 | the start fund
The Start Network is a consortium of 19 NGOs working together to

strengthen the humanitarian aid system. The consortium works in three
areas: Start Fund (financing for emergency response the subject
of this evaluation); Start Build (strengthening civil society capacity);
and Start Beta (creating platforms for partnerships and learning).
What is the start fund?

that aims to draw on traditional humanitarian bilateral donors,
newly emerging humanitarian donors, major private philanthropic
organisations and contributions by Start Network members.
Its creation arose out of a common desire from its members
to promote early action and reduces suffering, mortality and
morbidity2 and is based on the rationale that enabling NGOs
to manage their own emergency response fund will enable the
best placed organisations to respond to more emergencies, more
rapidly, which will strengthen their responsive capacity to provide
life-saving humanitarian assistance to reduce the suffering,
mortality and morbidity of affected populations.3
The members of the Start Network promote a way of working that

seeks to enable international and local humanitarian actors to
coexist. The vision of the Network is of a self-organising system where
the agencies best placed to respond to a crisis are empowered to
do so. To realise this vision, the members aim to work together to
catalyse a humanitarian sector that is more diverse, decentralised
and collaborative (figure 1 provides an explanation of these terms).
The Fund provides small scale funding to the Networks 19 members

and their partners (up to 300k per organisation over a 45 day
window to their members and partner organisations), with a focus
on initial rapid response to low-profile, underfunded, emergencies.
It releases funds to responders within 72 hours, and work starts
within seven days. It evolved from the Emergency Response Fund
which was established and managed by the Consortium of British
Humanitarian Agencies (the CBHA) and has benefitted considerably
from the lessons learned during its tenure.4
1
2
3
See Start Network Declaration of Intent, 14 February 2014, p1.

Start Fund outcome statement articulated in the DFID six month log frame.
Start Network (2014) Start Fund Handbook, 25th March 2014, p4.
For an independent evaluation of the CBHAs Emergency Response Fund, see http://www.startnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/October_27_Desk_Review_of_CBHA_ERF_final.pdf
figure 2
STarT fuNd baSeliNe aNd aNTicipaTed reach5

baSeliNe: The current financial architecture for humanitarian crises leaves a gap for NGOs.
Local and national NGOs especially struggle to access international sources of funding. Large
multilateral pooled funds and public fundraising efforts, such as agencies individual appeals
and the efforts of the Disasters Emergency Committee, often leave a large number of small to
medium scale disasters unaddressed, neglected or forgotten. Some pooled funds are directly
accessible by NGOs, and money from the CERF reaches NGOs through sub-contracts, but the
speed of funding is slow, and this inhibits NGO capacity to respond to crises of all sizes and
scales. This situation could be improved by:
l funding for under-served emergencies (whether they are small, cyclical or neglected/forgotten)
l funding is needs-based and allocated through peer-review to the agency that is best placed
to respond
l direct, fast funding for ngos (within 72 hours)
reach: Based on the absorptive capacity of the global Network and the fact that emergencies
are unpredictable, it is estimated that the Start Fund (with 20 million capacity) will be able to
respond to approximately 40 crises per year, to save the lives, alleviate suffering and protect the
dignity of 10-15 million affected people currently under-supported disasters. The Start Network
currently consists of 19 international NGOs with formal implementation and accountability
relationships with close to 7,000 partner organisations in 200 countries.
To date the Start Fund has secured funding of up to 30,511,177

GBP over three years, with contributions from two national
government donors: Ireland (Irish Aid) and the United Kingdom
(DFID). (During the nine-month design and build phase,
2,504,054 GBP was available for disbursement.) The Fund seeks
to complement existing global humanitarian pooled funds by
focusing on rapid response to under-served and small to medium
sized emergencies (see figure 2 for a description of the baseline
and anticipated reach of the Fund).
5
6
7
Ibid.
This section is adapted from the Start Fund Handbook, 25th March, 2014.
In 1991 the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Assistance
hoW does the start fund WorK?6

Any member of the extended network can raise an alert though
the 19 members about an emergency. The Allocation Committee
(AC) decides whether to hold a teleconference within 24 hours
of the alert. On the basis of a member survey, a context analysis
provided by the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) and
a funding analysis provided by Development Initiatives (DI),
the AC holds a teleconference to discuss activating the Start
Fund. Qualifying agencies then have 24 hours to submit a full
application to the Start Team. A country-based Project Selection
Committee (PSC) agrees which applications to support within 24
hours of receipt, using criteria based on OECD/DAC evaluation
criteria7 (where this is not possible, or not desirable, a UK-based
PSC takes its place). The Start Team will initiate the transfer of
the awarded funds within 24 hours of the decision. Committee
decisions are mostly made by peer review which is intended to be
impartial and to avoid undue bureaucracy. This is done to enable
the Network to make collective decisions and uphold the quality
of the process.
Committee established several principles of evaluation to guide member states. These principles
have subsequently been developed into five specific criteria which are widely used in evaluation.
figure 3
alerTS, acTivaTioNS aNd implemeNTiNg ageNcieS for The STarT fuNd iN iTS firST NiNe moNThS8
turKEY
Cafod l
Concern Worldwide l
afghaniStan
nigEria
Save the Children l
China
india
paKiStan
nEpal
l handicap
international
l plan
YEmEn
l international medical Corps
l Save the Children
KEnYa
mYanmar
l Christian aid
Somalia 1
l international rescue Committee
l muslim aid
CamEroon
international medical Corps l
plan l
Fund activation
alert not activated
Somalia 2
l relief international
l Christian aid
drC
Cafod l
Christian aid l
tearfund l
Implementing agencies
As a guide, not more than 50% of the available funds can be used in
any one emergency. The maximum amount that can be requested
by any member for a given emergency is 300,000. Start Fund
grants are available in 72 hours, and the work must start in seven
days and be completed in 45 days. Reports are due within 60 days
of the start of the response. The Start Fund is accompanied by
a Learning Framework that incentivises improved performance by
offering a grant of 1% of the funded amount for learning activities.
This aspect of the Start Funds work and monitoring and evaluation
of the Funds Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is overseen by the
Learning and Evaluation Committee (L&EC), which meets to peer
review the results of every activation by assessing performance at
the project, crisis response and process or system levels.
bangladESh
l Care
l Christian aid
l islamic relief
l oxfam
South Sudan
l action against hunger
l Christian aid
l plan
l tearfund
iN iTS firST NiNe moNThS,

The STarT fuNd haS beeN
alerTed 19 TimeS, fuNded
29 projecTS iN 12 emergeNcieS aNd haS SpeNT
2,106,121 To reach 1,320,017
diSaSTer-affecTed people
What has been achieved in the first nine months?

The first phase of the Start Fund from April to September 2014
represented a design and build period where the Fund was open for
allocations to crisis alerts, whilst simultaneously the infrastructure
and Fund management processes were being tested and refined.
In its first nine months, the Start Fund has been alerted 19 times
and has funded 29 projects in 12 emergencies and has spent
a total of 2,106,121 to reach 1,320,017 disaster-affected
people (see figure 3).9 49% of the funding applications received
were awarded, with funding disbursed to 17 of the 19 member
organisations, and 84% of the available funds were disbursed.
The 20th alert came on December 17, after writing this report, and has not been included in the
calculations. For this alert, the Fund was activated in less than 48 hours for crisis response to isolated
communities in Columbia and awarded 27,469 GBP to one project that is expected to reach 3,600
people.
2.3 | an analysis of relevant funding

instruments
In recent years, the humanitarian financing landscape has
become increasingly complex with a growing diversity of funds
established which target different constellations of organisations
and types of emergencies. Included in this are UN-managed and
NGO-led pooled funds, umbrella humanitarian organisations
which raise funds for member responses to large crises, and
donor-managed rapid response funds disbursed through NGOs.
While multi-agency funds can be quite different from each other,
many have some areas of commonality with the Start Fund which
make them of interest to the evaluation. The section below seeks
to briefly describe each of these types of funds to draw out the
commonalities to provide a basis for comparative analysis in the
evaluation (see below for an introduction to each of the funds and
figure 4 for a comparison of each against standardised criteria).
un-managed and ngo-led Pooled funds
Pooled funds have been used as a means to facilitate coordinated
response for many years although they have gained greater visibility
with the implementation of humanitarian reform after 2005. They
are generally considered to be more flexible and are often more
quickly activated than bilateral funding. While the proportion of
humanitarian assistance that is channeled through pooled funds
has remained relatively constant (around 5% between 2009 and
2014), the volume of humanitarian assistance has increased
from $824 in 2009 to over $1 billion in 2013.10
There are three main types of UN-managed pooled funds that are
in common use: Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs), Emergency
Response Funds (ERFs) and the Central Emergency Response
Fund (CERF). The CERF is a global pooled fund while the CHF and
ERF are country-based pooled funds.
CHFs are country-based pooled funds that provide early and
predictable funding to NGOs and UN agencies for their response
to critical humanitarian needs. CHFs enable Humanitarian
Country Teams (HCT) to allocate resources where they are most
needed, and to fund priority life-saving projects as identified in
humanitarian action plan. CHFs are currently present in six
countries including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and the Central African
Republic. CHF funding decisions involve cluster leads and other
key humanitarian partners in a comprehensive prioritisation and
allocation process. CHFs are managed by the Humanitarian
Coordinator (HC), with support provided by OCHA.
ERFs provide NGOs and UN agencies with rapid and flexible
funding to address critical gaps in humanitarian emergencies.
ERFs, also known as Humanitarian Response Funds in some
countries, are usually established to meet unforeseen needs not
Global Humanitarian Assistance (2014) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report, 2014, Development
Initiatives, p.60.
For more information about the RAPID fund, see https:
10
11
included in humanitarian action plan. ERFs predominantly fund

NGOs and may support local NGO capacity-building. They are
relatively small in comparison with other UN pooled funds (less
than US$10 million per year) and provide small to medium size
grants. Funding decisions are taken by the HC and the HCT after
a consultation and prioritization process. HCs oversee the ERFs,
with support provided by OCHA. In February 2013, there were
13 active ERFs in Afghanistan, Colombia, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan,
State of Palestine, Syria, yemen and Zimbabwe.
The CERF provides initial funding for life-saving assistance at
the onset of humanitarian crises, and critical support for poorly
funded, essential humanitarian response operations. Each year,
CERF allocates approximately US$400 million. It has three
objectives: to promote early and coordinated action and response
to save lives, to enhance response to time-critical requirements,
and to strengthen humanitarian response in under-funded
crises. Similar to the country-based pooled funds, CERF funding
decisions are made based on a prioritization process facilitated
by the clusters and allocation decisions are made by the HC and
often include the participation of the HCT.
NGO-led pooled funds, to which the Start Fund is a new addition,
are far less common than UN-managed pooled funds; one of
the better known examples is the Responding to Pakistans
Internally Displaced (RAPID) fund.11 Established in 2009 through
an agreement between USAID and Concern Worldwide, in its first
four years, RAPID provided over 29 million to local, national and
international NGOs.
umbrella humanitarian organisations
Umbrella organisations are formed at the national level and
support joint fundraising for specific emergencies, which are often
large-scale. While they are different to pooled funds in several
important aspects, particularly in that the funds they raise are
earmarked for specific crises, they also share some similarities,
including an emphasis on inter-agency collaboration around a
common crisis and the need for a common mechanism for funds
to be allocated, managed and reported on.
In the United Kingdom, the Disasters Emergency Committee
(DEC) is formed of 13 humanitarian aid agencies that fund raise
jointly in times of disaster such as flood, earthquake or famine
in poorer countries around the world. Appeals are reserved for
major disasters and emergencies that cannot be dealt with by the
usual coping mechanisms within affected countries and where
DEC member agencies are in a position to respond quickly and
effectively. Since its launch in 1963, the DEC has run 64 appeals
and raised more than 1.1 billion.12 There are similar umbrella
organisations in other parts of the world, most notably Canadas
Humanitarian Coalition.13
//www.concern.net/where-we-work/asia/pakistan/rapid-fund
http://www.dec.org.uk/about-dec
http://humanitariancoalition.ca/about-us
12
13
donor-managed raPid resPonse facilities

A relatively recent humanitarian funding phenomenon which also
seeks to galvanise collective humanitarian action are donormanaged rapid response funds. Membership typically comprises
of pre-qualified organisations that are either headquartered in the
country, or which have offices established there. DFIDs Rapid
Response Facility (RRF) can mobilise in 72 hours following a rapid
onset disaster, a spike in a chronic humanitarian emergency, or
other disasters. Members of the RRF are all international NGOs
with a proven record of response which have been through a
robust pre-qualification process. The RRF is activated only for
large-scale emergencies.
With a different configuration of stakeholders and mandate Canadas
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development has

established a partnership with the Humanitarian Coalition to
create the Canadian Humanitarian Assistance Fund (CHAF).
The purpose of the CHAF is to facilitate a timely and effective
response to localized disasters that have not received global
attention. It seeks to enhance the capacity for early response
by leveraging the established local presence maintained by the
member agencies.
At the time of the evaluation the proposed creation of similar
humanitarian funds by the governments of Netherlands and
the United States that will be disbursed through their networks
of national NGOs suggests that this may be becoming a wider
humanitarian financing trend.
figure 4
compariSoN of The characTeriSTicS of humaNiTariaN pooled fuNdS

CRITERIA
START
ERF
CHF
CERF
RAPID
DEC
DFID RRF
small/ medium
crises, early
response
and spikes in
chronic crises
unforeseen
needs and
gaps in
humanitarian
response
Priority lifesaving needs

in protracted
crises
new rapid &

slow onset
crises, spikes
in chronic
crises,
under-funded
emergencies
urgent relief
small & underand early
funded rapid
recovery needs onset, spikes
in chronic
crises, gaps in
response
large-scale
disasters with
media visibility
large-scale
rapid onset
crises or
spikes in
chronic crises
global
country-based
(13 countries)
country-based
(6 countries)
global (45
countries in
2013)
Pakistan
global
global (2
appeals in
2013)
global
13 activations
in 12 countries
myanmar,
yemen
somalia,
south sudan
ncameroon,
myanmar,
nepal, nigeria,
s. leone,
s. sudan,
somalia,
yemen
no
bdesh,
cameroon,
nepal, turkey
sierra leone
sierra leone,
ebola response south sudan
funding
awarded in
72 hours and
project start
in 7-days
4 - 8 weeks
from
identification
of problem
to project
approval14
tbc (global
evaluation
currently in
process)
3.5 - 7 weeks
for first
submission to
disbursement
(ufe & rr
window)15
10 - 30 days
for approval of
proposals16
activation
phase should
not exceed
13 days
dec Phase 1
plans have to
be submitted
a month from
the date of
the appeal
size of fund
2.25m for
9 month
pilot phase
usually less
than $4m p.a.
although may
exceed this
during a crisis
usually $60120m p.a.

although less
in 2014
$421m in
2014 and
$478m in
2013
2009 - 2013
$29m
can$2m from
dfat-d for 18
month pilot
depends on
not specified
public response
to appeal. 27m
for sierra leone
ebola (as of
27/11/2014)
response
decision
- maKing
Processes
membershipbased peer
review for
allocations
and project
selection
hct with
support from
clusters
hct with
support from
clusters
united nations
country team
or hct with
support from
clusters
country-based
by concern
Worldwide on
behalf of ofda
dfatd in
coordination
with the
humanitarian
coalition
dec trustees
supported
by the
secretariat.
dfid
eligible
reciPients
ingos
mainly ingo
and nngo
although un
is eligible for
some erfs
un, ingo
and nngo
un agencies
and iom
ingo
and nngo
humanitarian
coalition
members
(ingos)
13 ingo
members
implementing
partners
(ingos)
fund
management
ngo member
ocha on
behalf
of the hc
ocha on
behalf of the
hc (undP
finance mgt)
ocha- cerf
secretariat on
behalf of erc
concern
Worldwide on
behalf of ofda
humanitarian
coalition
secretariat in
coordination
with dfat-d
dec
secretariat on
behalf of dec
board
dfid
tyPes of
emergencies
countries
of oPeration
mobilised for
emergencies
Which received
start funding
timelines
fund
mobilisation
funds leverage
an explicit KPi
Thompson, E., Horekens, J., Mander, N., Conoir, Y., Arsenault, M., Wallis, T. and Cherkaoui, N.
(2013) The Global Evaluation of Emergency Response Funds (ERFs), March 2013, UN OCHA, New
York, p17.
14
CHAF
funding
should be
awarded
within
72 hours
annual
reporting
includes funds
leveraged
Channel Research (2011) 5-Year Evaluation of the Central Emergency Response Fund, Final Synthesis Report, 11 August 2011, p66.
Miller, P. & Ullah Khan, N. (2014), Report of Evaluation of RAPID Fund I, p20.
15
16
3 | relevaNce
Drawing on an analysis of the Start Funds activations in the first nine months, this section seeks to determine its relevance to supporting
the humanitarian response of its members and assesses its added value and complementarity with other funds that are part of the
broader humanitarian financing landscape.
3.1 | classifying crises - understanding the

role of the start fund in resPonding to crises
In the first nine months a Start Fund Alert has been raised on 19
occasions, and the Fund has been activated on 12 occasions.
During the design & build phase, a policy of piloting different
response types was pursued in order to better understand its
appropriateness to different types of crises. These response
types included the following:
l rapid onset natural or man-made disasters;
l early responses to slow onset or cyclical disasters;
l spikes in chronic disasters.
It is also important to note the type of crisis for which the Start
Fund has not been activated which includes large scale natural
and man-made disasters for which other funding mechanisms,
including DFIDs Rapid Response Facility (RRF) or the UN CERF,
are considered to be more appropriate.
While the design and build phase has begun to provide an
evidence base for the types of responses that are considered the
best fit for the Start Fund, because trialling diverse responses
was an anticipated outcome of the pilot process, it meant that
the AC proactively sought diverse contexts (see figure 5 below).
figure 5
aNalySiS of STarT fuNd alerTS aNd acTivaTioNS

CHARACTERISTIC
# ALERT # FUNDED
NOTES
raPid onset
disasters
(natural & man-made)
alerT: Floods in Afghanistan, Internally Displaced Person (IDP) crisis in Pakistan

(Alert.PAK2), earthquake in China, floods in Bangladesh, floods in Nepal, Syrian
refugees in Turkey, cyclone in India and floods in Somalia
fuNded: Floods in Bangladesh, Nepal and Somalia, and Syrian refugees in Turkey
sloW onset/food
insecurity crises
alerT: All for food insecurity in South Sudan, Somalia and Kenya
fuNded: Kenya not funded because the Start Fund would have a limited impact &
crisis already receiving donor attention
anticiPatory
resPonses
to natural
and man-made
disasters
alerT: South Sudan (in advance of rains and funding), Somalia (in advance
of peak hunger and funding), Kenya (in advance of peak hunger), Sierra Leone (in
advance of the spread of Ebola and significant funding), India (in advance
of cyclone Hudhud making landfall)
fuNded: Kenya not funded (see above) and India not funded due to an uncertainty
about the potential needs
sPiKes in
chronic crises*
alerT: IDPs in Myanmar, Pakistan (Alert.Pak1) and Democratic Republic

of the Congo (DRC) (Alert.DRC1 & Alert.DRC2)
fuNded: Myanmar and DRC (Alert.DRC2)
sPiKes in
ongoing crises*
alerT: IDPs in Yemen, cholera in Cameroon and Nigeria

fuNded: All alerts received funding
alerT: Floods in Afghanistan, earthquake in China, floods in Bangladesh, floods in

Nepal, cyclone in India, floods in Somalia
fuNded: Floods in Bangladesh, Nepal & Somalia. Did not fund Afghanistan because
it was considered to be a cyclical crisis, China because government response
sufficient & cyclone in India because of uncertainty about potential needs
natural disasters
6
man-made
disasters
(conflict, disease)
*crises ongoing for > 24 months
10
alerT: IDPs in Myanmar, Pakistan (Alert.PAK1 & Alert.PAK2), Yemen, DRC (Alert.
DRC1 & Alert.DRC2), Syria refugees in Turkey, Ebola in Sierra Leone & cholera in
Cameroon & Nigeria
fuNded: Myanmar, Ebola in Sierra Leone, Yemen, cholera in Cameroon & Nigeria,
Syria IDPs in Turkey, DRC (Alert.DRC2)
A review of the AC meeting minutes for each of the activations

reveals the greatest level of consensus for response to rapid
onset crises, particularly to natural disasters. Where there was
greatest uncertainty in allocating funding was in response to
slow onset/food insecurity crises where the members off the AC
tended to be divided over the added value of the small grant size
and the short intervention period.
Responses to crises that can be classified as anticipatory have
also tended to elicit a mixed response with three such responses
funded and two not receiving funding. While it is difficult to clearly
determine the reason for this, a lack of a shared analysis about
the alert (Kenya), disagreement about the relevance of the Fund
to the context (Somalia although an activation did follow) and
uncertainties about whether funding for a humanitarian response
would be required (India) all played a part in complicating decisionmaking about the respective allocations. However, for the prepositioning of relief items in advance of the rains in South Sudan,
and support for the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone in advance of
the global focus on addressing the crisis, there was far greater
consensus on the relevance of the Start Fund.
One type of emergency for which the Fund has not been
activated has been for small emergencies that happen at a
local-level such as mud-slides, fires or building collapse. These
types of emergencies rarely capture the attention of the media
but may cumulatively account for significant suffering and loss

of life. Typically they require a presence on the ground and an
ability to move swiftly which is most suited to national partner
response rather than international organisations. Given the
mandate of the Start Fund and the potential that exists for it to
be activated quickly, it could play a role in responding to these
crises, but it has not been called on to do so. It is possible that
with the support from the capacity building component of the
Start Network, Start Build, and as members partner agencies
become more familiar with the Fund (or become members of
the Network themselves), that these sorts of responses may
become more viable. as the fund is replenished in 2015
activations in support of a small-scale emergency would assist
in building the evidence base for the relevance of the fund for
small-scale emergencies.17
analysing the evidence base for decision-maKing
and strengthening anticiPation
As it grows in size, greater importance will be attached to the
Start Fund being able to provide robust evidence of high quality
needs-based decision-making. This is currently achieved through
the analysis of its members and the external inputs received
by ACAPS and DI, which provide objective analysis to support
decisions about the activation of the Fund. Interviews suggest
that these tools provide high quality information which was
considered by members to support objective analysis.
figure 6
compariSoN of STarT fuNd alerTS wiTh global vulNerabiliTy iNdiceS

aNd acapS briefiNg NoTe guidaNce
START FUND ALERT ACAPS START FUND BRIEFING

(in date order)
NOTE CLASSIFICATION
NEED FOR ASSISTANCE
ExPECTED IMPACT
(0 LOW, 4 HIGH)
south sudan
myanmar
afghanistan
PaKistan
somalia
sierra leone
PaKistan
yemen
cameroon
bangladesh
drc
china
nePal
turKey
india
Kenya
drc
nigeria
somalia
TOTAL
(0 LOW, 4 HIGH)
(NEED + IMPACT SCORE)
The Colombia activation which occurred shortly after the evaluation took place was in response
to a small-scale emergency and will start to fill the gap in evidence.
17
DECISION TAKEN
By THE AC
AC DECISION
ON FUND ACTIvATION
activated
activated
not activated
not activated
activated
activated
not activated
activated
activated
activated
not activated
not activated
activated
activated
not activated
not activated
activated
activated
activated
A review of the ratings given in the ACAPS briefing notes for

international assistance and expected impact (see figure 6)
highlights some disparities between the ACAPS steer and the
decisions made by the AC. While the ACAPS classification and
the decision taken by the AC for the China and India alert were
consistent, some of the alerts which were rated most highly by
ACAPS, were rejected by the AC (e.g. for Afghanistan, Pakistan
and DRC). While such inconsistencies are not surprising as the
decisions made by the AC also draw from its members operational
presence in the crisis-affected area as well as the DI funding
analysis, there would be value in the Start Team documenting the
reasons for the inconsistencies.
swift activation of the fund, it offers a good fit with some of the UN
pooled funds (ERF, CHF and CERF), which take longer to activate
but which often disburse larger funding envelopes to a broader
range of organisations over longer periods of time. The focus of
the Start Fund on small-to-medium humanitarian emergencies
also potentially positions it as a good fit with funds which focus
on larger emergencies such as the CERF and DFIDs RRF. In
order to assess the extent to which the Start Fund complements
other funds, an analysis was undertaken of four emergencies,
Cameroon, Nepal, South Sudan and yemen, that are broadly
representative of the geographic and humanitarian profile of the
Start Fund activations (figure 7).
An area where the Start Fund is seeking to strengthen its analysis

is in anticipating countries and/or crises that are most likely to
require a Start Fund response. Anticipation offers the obvious
benefits of giving greater time for organisations to refine their
analysis and prepare to respond. One means of strengthening
anticipation is the IASC Early Warning Early Action group which
collaborates to produce bi-annual Early Warning briefing notes.
The briefing notes are primarily aimed at the IASC Emergency
Directors Group and the CERF secretariat to influence the
triggering of collective resources for early action. anticipation is
an area that the start fund has the potential to strengthen
given the operational reach of its 19-members and the
resources that already exist in the fund. by participating in
the early Warning early action group and by integrating its
analysis into its decision-making processes, the fund could
improve the potential for early action as well as strengthening
its complementarity with the cerf.
Assuming that the reported data is correct, for the four

emergencies analysed, the Start Fund performed well both in
terms of the timeliness of its response to the crisis event and its
response time in comparison to other funds.
3.2 | an analysis of the comPlementarity

of the start fund With other humanitarian
funds
The growth in global humanitarian need has placed humanitarian
financing mechanisms under significant strain. While the
increase in the scale and diversity of pooled funds has gone
some way to strengthening both the timeliness and needs-base
of humanitarian response, there remain important gaps in the
financing architecture. Two of the most important of these are in
the provision of timely funding immediately after a crisis and the
provision of funding directly to local and national NGOs, which
often provide the majority of operational capacity in the first days
and weeks of humanitarian response. From the perspective of
those affected by crises, these two gaps are among the most
important to fill.
At present, with its membership restricted to 19 INGOs, the key
contribution of the Start Fund is in promoting early response to
humanitarian crises with its 72 hour activation, an unprecedented
speed for a pooled fund. While at this time it does not directly
fund national or local NGOs, it does pass funding through to
these organisations within the same timeframe and requires
project commencement within seven days of award. Given the
In response to flooding in Nepal, the fund was activated

within eight days and;
For the upsurge in the conflict in Yemen, activation occurred
within two weeks;
The cholera in Cameroon reached epidemic proportions in
May but was considered to have gone beyond the capacity
of the national health authority in early July with Start Fund
activation occurring at the end of the month in anticipation
of a further escalation due to the rains;
The South Sudan activation occurred in advance of the rains
which start in June, two months after the activation occurred.
While the uneven use of FTS by donors to report humanitarian

funding can offer only an incomplete picture of what funding
was received for each of the four emergencies, the information
available suggests that the Start Fund is a potentially good fit
with the mosaic of existing instruments largely on account of its
speed of activation. In each of the four crises, it complemented
funding from at least one other UN pooled fund (albeit disbursed
to different organisations and often in different locations) with
bilateral, multilateral donors and foundations offering larger grants
but often arriving later than the Start Fund allocations were made.
It is important to acknowledge that its comparatively small size
means that the Start Fund has not been a significant partner to
most of the other funds described, but the evidence suggests
that in targeting emergencies that are often not so visible or by
seeking to respond in a timely way to spikes in crises, the Start
Fund has found a relevant niche. The South Sudan and Cameroon
activations also provide evidence of the value of the fund when
triggered in anticipation of an increase in humanitarian need. The
analysis of pooled funds and donor responses to the four crises
provides evidence not only of the agility of the Fund, but also its
prominent position in supporting initial response and in so doing
complementing existing humanitarian funding instruments.
The pooled fund that has most in common with the Start Fund is
the CHAF which was activated in two of the four crises (and which
figure 7
aNalySiS of humaNiTariaN fuNdiNg To four criSeS which received STarT fuNdiNg iN 2014
FUND/COUNTRy
CAMEROON
NEPAL
SOUTH SUDAN
yEMEN
requested: $126m
received: $55m
% funded: 43
No response plan
requested: $658
received: $322
% funded: 49
requested: $596
received: $323
% funded: 54
Cholera outbreak in nine

health districts since
18 March but officially
declared an epidemic
in May. A spike in need
occurred in early July.
allocation decision:
30 July (140k)
Localized flash floods

affecting a total of
28,656 families in six
districts since 1 Sept.
9 Sept (100k)
Acute food insecurity

in South Sudan and
the need to preposition
relief supplies before
the rains in June.
2 April (664k)
Spike in fighting in
Amran, North Yemen,
creating a need for
affected communities
since 4th July.
15 July (156k)
erf
No ERF
No ERF
No ERF
ERF allocations in July

including in Sanaa,
which was the focus for
Start Funding ($1.3m)
chf
No CHF
No CHF
CHF funding released

in Jan, March, May
& July. No funding to
Start members ($7.5m)
No CHF
Cameroon selected for

UFE window because
Strategic Response Plan
10% funded & unmet
needs of refugees. Project
approvals in September
and October ($4.5m)
RR window allocation
in response to the
floods. Approval dates
in October ($1.8m)
RR window allocation
which focused on
funding for nutrition
and health interventions.
Project approvals
in April ($14.9m)
Allocation from first

round of funding from
UFE window to 8 UN
agencies so not directly
related to the crisis
which received Start
Funding ($13.9m)
chaf
Allocation for Child Health

& Nutrition Response
for CAR Refugees in
East Cameroon to Plan
International in July
(CAD$402k)
WASH & Emergency

Food Security &
Livelihoods intervention
to Oxfam in September
(CAD$300k)
No CHAF funding
No CHAF funding
additional
ProJect funding
recorded on fts20
Gates Foundation,
August ($900k)
Danish funding, endAugust ($107k) ECHO

funding, end-August
and early-Sep ($329k)
Irish Aid funding, early
September ($33k) Gates
Foundation funding,
early-Sep ($400k)
Danish funding, earlySep ($52k) Swedish
funding, early-Sep
($172k) Luxembourg
funding, mid-Oct ($142k)
OFDA funding, March

($801k)Private funding,
mid-March ($102k)
Finland funding, midMarch ($32k)Czech
funding, mid-March
($100k)DFID funding,
mid-March ($13.8m)
Norwegian funding,
end-March ($1.96m)
OFDA funding, April
($5+4+5m) Denmark
funding, May ($6.4m)
DFID funding, early June

($1.9m) ECHO funding,
mid-June ($4.08m) US
funding, end-June ($727k
+ $361k) US funding,
end-June ($1.16m) US
funding, end-June ($700k)
DFID funding, early-July
($54k) DFID funding,
early-July ($4.55m)
DFID funding, early-July
($913k) US funding,
end-July ($24.1m)
2014 resPonse
Plan funding18,19
start fund
(Eligibility: 19 INGOs)
(Eligibility: INGO,
NNGO, sometimes UN)
(Eligibility: INGO,
NNGO and UN)
cerf
(Eligibility: UN)
in total has been activated in six of the Start fund activations and
also in one crisis where the fund was alerted but not activated).
While the focus of the CHAF on funding a single NGO member
for each of its activations means that the likelihood of overlap
with the Start Fund is slim21 the similarities between the chaf
and the start fund suggests that there would be added value
in establishing more formal coordination mechanisms between

the two funds which should include at a minimum, notification
of alerts and activations. With the possibility of similar funds
being established in the future, and given the emphasis placed
by the start fund on collaboration, there is scope for the start
team to role-model this.
The Response Plan for each crisis articulates humanitarian needs that are far broader than the
specific subset that the Start Fund was targeting, but the figures do provide an overall view of the
proportion of humanitarian needs that received funding.
19
OCHA FTS, 11/12/2014.
20
OCHAs Financial Tracking Service (FTS) records all reported humanitarian aid contributions
21
18
with a special focus on strategic response plans and appeals. See http://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.
aspx?page=home
Despite the limited likelihood of double funding, it is noteworthy that Plan International received
funding from both the Start Fund and the CHAF in Cameroon, however, they were earmarked for
different crises.
4 | effecTiveNeSS
This section seeks to assess the effectiveness and performance of the Start Fund in its first nine months and focuses on process
management, information, coordination, quality assurance, fund leveraging and learning.
figure 8
explaNaTory NoTe oN The efficieNcy criTerioN
efficiency measures how economically inputs (usually financial, human, technical and
material resources) were converted to outputs. assessment of efficiency tends to
start with financial data and usually involves comparisons with alternatives.22
In seeking to determine the efficiency of the Start Fund in converting inputs (funding) to outputs
(attainment of KPIs and project results but also less tangible outcomes including progress made
towards the vision), the evaluation has failed to find comparable data sets. While the financial data
to support comparisons is available by the Start Fund, the same data is not available has not been
made available in other pooled fund evaluations (RAPID, ERF) which precludes comparisons. A
second more complex challenge is in finding a suitable comparator for the Start Fund as there is
no single fund that is a good fit. Of the potential comparators, some have far larger budgets (CERF
or CHFs), are country-based rather than global (RAPID, ERF, CHF), or target a more diverse group of
members including perceived higher risk organisations (RAPID, CHF and ERF).
While paucity of financial data for pooled funds means that quantitative comparisons are not
possible, there are a number of other metrics and qualitative data that can be compared. In
order to provide some analysis of how the Start Fund compares with other pooled funds, the
evaluation will analyse a range of humanitarian funds against a set of performance criteria. It
will also highlight efforts that have been taken by the Start Fund and its members to use the
resources it has in the most efficient way (functioning in the best possible manner with the
least waste of time and effort) and make recommendations about how these efforts can be
strengthened in the future.
4.1 | analysing Performance metrics and

ProJect results
an assessment of Key Performance indicators
Using the project report forms, the Start Team has maintained a
database which has tracked each of its key performance metrics
over the nine month life of the Start Fund. An analysis of this data
is provided below (see figure 9).
The most significant finding from the analysis is that with
only a small number of minor exceptions the Start Fund has
consistently met or exceeded its KPIs. For a fund that has only
been established for nine months and which has set itself an
ambitious target for its activation that exceeds the aspirations
of any other pooled fund, the Start Team and members have
performed well in consistently meeting their performance targets.
The agility of the Start Fund in responding to crises has filled an
Beck T (2006) Evaluating humanitarian action using the OECD-DAC criteria: An ALNAP guide for
humanitarian agencies, ALNAP, p44.
22
important gap in the humanitarian financing landscape that many

would have considered beyond the reaches of a membershipbased, peer-led, global, pooled fund. That this has been achieved
from the launch of the fund, when it was little known outside of
member headquarters, is all the more impressive. While some
members admitted that the swift activation strained some of their
systems, they viewed this tension positively and felt that the Fund
had spurred them on to respond more quickly than they would
have otherwise done.
The quality of the data that has been collected on the Start
Funds metrics is worthy of note and suggests that the resourcing
of performance monitoring has been a wise investment.
Knowing that timely response to humanitarian needs can play
a significant role in saving lives and supporting livelihoods, the
evidence suggests that the Start Fund is well-positioned to have
impact.
figure 9
aNalySiS of STarT fuNd key performaNce iNdicaTorS

COUNTRy
TyPE OF
ALERT
TyPE OF
CRISIS
TARGET
ALERT TO AWARD TO
AWARD
START-UP
(hrs.)
(days)
PROjECT
COMPLETED
(days)
24
24
24
72
45
south
sudan
Slow
onset
Early
22.83
response
to slow
onset crisis
425k
24
21
74.5
ACF: 0
Christian Aid: 7
Tearfund: 3
45
myanmar
Slow
onset
Spike in
chronic
crisis
22.66
200k
24
4.25
54.5
Christian Aid: 5
45
somalia
Slow
onset
Early
24.25
response
to slow
onset crisis
500k
24
20
71.5
IRC: 5
Muslim Aid: 1
45
sierra
leone
Rapid
onset
Rapid
25.75
onset crisis
350k
24
18
69
ActionAid: 2
Christian Aid: 6
Concern: 1
Save: 0
45
yemen
Slow
onset
Spike in
chronic
crisis
24.83
200k
24
16.5
67
IMC: 3
Save: 7
45
cameroon
Slow
onset
Spike in
chronic
crisis
24.33
140k
24
19
70.5
IMC: 1,
Plan: 1
45
bangladesh
Rapid
onset
Rapid
22.3323
onset crisis
200k
24
26.66
65.5
CARE: 3
Christian Aid: 3,
Islamic Relief: 5
45
nePal
Rapid
onset
Rapid
23.75
onset crisis
100k
24
20.25
71
Handicap: 3
Plan: 4
45
turKey
Rapid
onset
Rapid
24.66
onset crisis
200k
24
22
70
CAFOD: 5,
Concern: 4
45
dem. reP.
congo
Slow
onset
Spike in
chronic
crisis
24
200k
24
21
70
TBC
45
somalia
Rapid
onset
Rapid
24
onset crisis
200k
24
21
70
TBC
TBC
nigeria
Rapid
onset
Spike in
chronic
crisiss
125k
24
24
72
TBC
TBC
24
19.47
68.79
AvERAGE
23
ALERT TO TOTAL
ACTIvATION TO APPLICATION
AC MTG FUNDS
APPLICATION
TO PCS
(hrs.)
ALLOCATED DEADLINE
(hrs.)
This does not include a one-week deferment period.
24
24.09
236K
45
figure 10
analysis of ProJect results

While an assessment of project outputs and outcomes is outside
of the scope of the evaluation, project monitoring provides a
breakdown of the numbers of people reached and the sectors
of intervention from the Start Funds 29 projects (see figure 10).
As the Start Fund is not linked to Clusters in the same way that
the UN-managed pooled funds are, it is not possible to determine
the extent to which the sectors that have been prioritised by the
Start Fund members for a given emergency are consistent with
those that have been prioritised by the humanitarian coordination
architecture.
STarT fuNd projecTS fuNded, people reached

aNd SecTorS of iNTerveNTioN24
South Sudan
Myanmar
Somalia
Sierra Leone
Adapted from Start Fund (2014) The Start Fund story after 9 months, the Start Network p3.
(adjusted total)
ExpECtEd
DrC
nigeria
Somalia
4
2
4
2
2
yemen
Cameroon
Bangladesh
nepal
Turkey
2
2
3
1
2
activities
(cumulative total)
1,320,017
1,648,781
34,377
2,176
27,829
596,405
37,482
456,297
70,792
5,794
13,152
59,252
15,203
36,354
602,847
63,992
513,947
172,244
7,967
13,152
10,655
35,098
29,950
27,255
61,768
74,800
SECtorS of intErvEntion
WaSh
Shelter
nutrition
health
16
11
Education
protection
fSl
11
# of projects with activities covering the given sector
an analysis of funding continuity and leveraging

A critical question for the viability of the Start Fund model is the
extent to which its rapid activation and execution fits with followon funding from other donors. While it is difficult to determine this
with any degree of rigour due to the vagaries of donor reporting and
limitations in the systems that are used to collect funding data,
information collected during the fieldwork suggests a mixed picture.
l
24
Individuals
to datE
in the feedback to the draft evaluation report, there was some

concern that the evaluation did not deal in any detail with
project outputs and outcomes. While this was not part of the
tor and hence was outside the scope of the exercise, it will be
important in the future to address this gap. experience in trying
to evaluate the impact of other pooled funds has highlighted
the complexities of this task as pooled funding is generally comingled with other funding which makes it difficult to attribute
change to a particular source. given the 45-day activation period
for the start fund, the challenges of attribution will be even
more pronounced. however, by commissioning a field-focused
evaluation which prioritises project review and interviews with
field staff, partners and crisis-affected communities, it should
be possible to build up a more detailed picture of changes that
can be attributed to the disbursement of timely start funding.
furthermore, if a range of different activations were selected
(e.g. rapid/slow onset/spikes etc.), then it may be possible to
strengthen the evidence base for the types of activation where
the fund can have greatest effect.
identifying good Practice in data disaggregation
The Start Fund has established a reporting mechanism that
disaggregates beneficiary numbers by gender and by age group
(under 18, 18-49 years, and over 50 years) which should be
considered good practice. There was some concern raised
about the viability of routinely collecting this data which in some
cases required an additional investment in time and resources.
By routinely disaggregating data in this way, there is significant
potential to strengthen collective understanding of the differential
impact of crises on peoples lives. There have been requests
to strengthen this by including an analysis of disability in both
the project application and report form and in making a decision
on this it will be important to strike a balance between what is
required to strengthen needs-based decision-making and what is
feasible in the context of responding rapidly to crises.
pEoplE rEaChEd
29 projECtS
The response scenario that appears to best support

funding continuity is rapid onset interventions where a 45
day injection of funding was often followed by funding from
other pooled funds, bilateral or multilateral donors. As an
example, for the Bangladesh activation, all of the agencies
that were Start-funded received follow-on funding from
either ECHO or DFID within the 45 day activation period
(see figure 11) although it is important to note that many
other organisations that were not Start Funded received
similar funding from the same donors.
A more problematic example was the Somalia activation
in which one member received no follow-on funding and
so the intervention ceased after 45 days while the second
received funding significantly later than the 45-day period.
In the context of a protracted slow onset crisis, such a
short timeframe is not an effective use of resources.
been leveraged which is defined as funding that the member receiving during or just after the 45
day project. Feedback collected during the evaluation suggests that donor funding is disbursed for
numerous reasons which includes
historical organisational performance, participation in preferred
humanitarian consortia and the quality of donor proposals in addition to the prior presence of an
organisation in the affected area which may be attributed to the Start Fund. As a result of this
there is a likelihood of considerable over-reporting against this KPI. With a view to strengthening
the evidence base for the 45 day intervention period and given the problems associated with the
existing approach to gathering data on fund leveraging, there would be value in routinely asking
members whether there was follow-on funding for the specific Start-funded intervention (rather
than a more general question about fund leveraging).
figure 11
humaNiTariaN Need
fuNd
leveragiNg
STarT-fuNded
iN The
baNgladeSh acTivaTioN
Figure
12: Fund
leveraging byby
Start-funded
membersmemberS
in the Bangladesh
activation
dayS afTer baNgladeSh floodS commeNced
4.2 Analysis
of collected
process effectiveness
one of the metrics
routinely
in the project report form funding for the specific start-funded intervention (rather than a
The
process
of
raising
thewhich
fund,isallocating
funding,question
selectingabout
projects
reporting
more general
fundand
leveraging).
is the quantity of funding that
hasalerts,
been activating
leveraged
on
results
has
benefitted
considerably
from
the
lessons
learned
during
the
management
of the
defined as funding that the member receiving during or just after
Emergency
Response
Fund by
the Consortium
of British
(CBHA),effectiveness
which was
the 45 day project.
feedback
collected
during
the evaluation
4.2 Humanitarian
| analysis Agencies
of Process
suggests that donor funding is disbursed for numerous
reasons which includes historical organisational performance, The process of raising alerts, activating the fund, allocating
participation in preferred humanitarian consortia and the funding, selecting projects and reporting on results has benefitted
quality of donor proposals in addition to the prior presence of considerably from the lessons learned during the management
an organisation in the affected area which may be attributed of the Emergency Response Fund by the Consortium of British
to the start fund. as a result of this there is a likelihood of Humanitarian Agencies (CBHA), which was the precursor to
considerable over-reporting against this KPi. With a view to the Start Fund. While the systems have since evolved, the
strengthening the evidence base for the 45 day intervention evaluation received considerable feedback about issues related
period and given the problems associated with the existing to effectiveness. Each of the steps outlined in figure 12 will be
approach to gathering
dataofon
would
there is
Evaluation
thefund
Startleveraging,
Fund designthere
& build
phasebe reviewed, and recommendations will be made where
18
value in routinely asking members whether there was follow-on scope to strengthen them.
the precursor to the Start Fund. While the systems have since evolved, the evaluation received
considerable feedback about issues relatedf to
Each of the steps outlined in figure 13
i geffectiveness.
ure 12
will be reviewed, and recommendations will be made where there is scope to strengthen them.
STarT fuNd Timeframe diagram aNd proceSS25
Figure 13: Start Fund timeframe diagram and process
Step 1: Crisis alert
25
25
In the event of a crisis, the Start Network member agencies report a crisis to the Start Team.
This is done by sending an alert note. The Start Team requests an assessment of the crisis from
Adapted from Start Network (2014)
Start Fund
p9. Theanalysis
diagram is from
replicated
in full in annex 4. Initiatives. The members inform the Start
ACAPs
andHandbook,
a funding
Development
Team within 24 hours of the alert whether they would apply for funding should the Start Fund
be activated. If at least 1 agency is potentially able to carry out a response and fewer than half
STep 1: criSiS alerT

In the event of a crisis, the Start Network member agencies
report a crisis to the Start Team. This is done by sending an alert
note. The Start Team requests an assessment of the crisis from
ACAPs and a funding analysis from Development Initiatives. The
members inform the Start Team within 24 hours of the alert
whether they would apply for funding should the Start Fund be
activated. If at least 1 agency is potentially able to carry out a
response and fewer than half of the membership objects to a
telecon, the Start Team organises a teleconference (or face-toface meeting) with the AC, and shares the ACAPS assessment
with them.
Alerts have been raised in a variety of different forms by members
independently and collectively. While there is no obligation for a
member to inform others about an alert, given the need for a
majority of AC members to activate the Fund, collaboration in
raising alerts can be helpful in strengthening analysis and in
anticipating crises and prompting early action.
the use of an online Platform for analysis & alerts:
There is interest from within the membership to strengthen
collective anticipation by the use of an online platform to share
analysis. A secondary benefit of such a system would be to offer
an opportunity for members who work exclusively through partners
and do not have a presence in-country to participate in raising an
alert. This issue was raised by a member who was concerned
that the lack of an operational presence meant that it missed the
opportunity of alerting its partners and may have played a part in
its failure to receive funding. An online platform would also permit
the Start Team to monitor up-and-coming alerts which would assist
with anticipating resource needs are in place to manage and
facilitate the Fund activation processes. While members should
retain the right to raise an alert without consultation, investment
in tools to strengthen collaboration in early warning and response
have much to offer the start fund, particularly as it seeks to
expand its membership. the establishment of an online platform
by the start fund would offer the benefits of pooling information
and analysis, notifying members of the potential for an alert and
strengthening anticipation and is strongly recommended.
strengthening decision-maKing for the delegation of
the allocation Process to the start team:
Once an alert note has been circulated, members are requested
to fill in a questionnaire to elicit additional information about the
crisis, to canvas opinions about whether to activate the Start Fund
and to inform a decision about whether the Start Team oversees
the process on behalf of the AC. It is anticipated that the Start
Team may oversee smaller activations and during the pilot phase
this occurred on one occasion.
With a view to a future start fund with more members and a
larger fund size that is likely to be activated more frequently,
some concern was raised about mechanisms to trigger a

delegated process. a means of achieving this would to more
clearly outline the dimensions and complexity of a crisis in the
alert note. by requiring the alerting agency to outline the crisis
against a pre-determined set of criteria (which could include
the number of people/refugees/idPs affected, the geographic
area affected, the political complexity of the crisis, security/
risk rating) it would be easier to identify crises which may lend
themselves to start team oversight. in discussing the issue
of the acs involvement in decision-making, it is important to
underline the enthusiasm that exists within the members to
participate in allocation decision-making.
STep 2: allocaTioN
The AC decides whether the Start Fund will be activated for
the crisis. This committee consists of a representative group of
12 Start Network members. When the committee decides to
activate the fund it will also allocate a maximum disbursement
amount to the response which currently has a ceiling of 1
million (although this was not applied during the pilot phase,
towards the end of which the ceiling was reduced to 200k
because of the small size of the Fund.) In April 2014 the AC was
also given the additional task of fund management until such
time as the Start Network governance is reformed.
The AC has proven to be a good steward of the Start Fund and
has proactively sought to manage the longevity of the Fund during
the pilot phase which this has at times required restricting the
allocation ceiling. It has also successfully tested a range of
different activations with a view to promoting learning and to
building the evidence base about where the Fund can add value.
During the pilot phase, a number of issues have arisen that have
challenged the decision-making processes of the AC or of the
Start Fund more generally and are worthy of discussion:
maintaining the indePendence of the start fund:
Following the floods in Bangladesh there was a request by
DFID for the activation of the fund to be postponed pending the
completion of a joint Needs Assessment (jNA). After deliberation
within the AC this request was accepted, and the Fund was
activated several days later after the jNA had been completed.
While the progress that has been made in Bangladesh to
elaborate a jNA methodology that is both agile and inclusive
is impressive, the humanitarian imperative would favour rapid
response in coordination with a jNA rather than considering
the two activities as being mutually exclusive. Given that at the
time of the request to postpone activation, a large number of
Start Network members had already initiated modest floods
responses using their own funding at the same time as they were
either leading or participating in the jNA, there is little basis for
agreeing to similar delays in the future. With this in mind, it will
be important for the start fund to communicate and defend
its independence, ensuring that activations are consistent with
the commitment of its members to the humanitarian imperative.

in making this recommendation, it is important to acknowledge
that while bangladesh has a relatively efficient Jna process, in
some countries, joint assessment can be laboured, and so any
delays could have serious consequences for those in need of
humanitarian assistance as well as for the credibility of the fund.
the articulation of geograPhic or sectoral Priorities:
There has been a tension within the AC on the appropriateness of
providing a geographic or sectoral steer for the use of the Fund. This
has most often occurred in the latter months of the pilot phase,
when due to budgetary limitations the AC had to allocate relatively
small funding envelopes. This practice is considered to undermine
the project selection process (described in step 4 below) which has
been decentralised so that decisions are now made at the country
level. Both of the case study visits highlighted specific concerns
about the relevance of the prioritisation provided by the AC. Even
when light recommendations on prioritisation were given, they
tended to be weighted more highly than country-based decisions
and at times steered PSCs away from what they considered to
be higher priorities. With this in mind, it is recommended that
the ac focuses on its core task of allocating funds. if there is
a compelling reason for prioritisation, then this should be done
in concert with in-country members or the Psc (if one has been
formed) as part of a joint process with country-based staff.
the challenge of defining allocation amounts:
The AC currently defines a specific ceiling for each allocation
which the PSC can allocate. For a number of the activations
this has led to a proportion of the funding being returned to the
Fund because project applications that have been selected have
exceeded the amount allocated by the AC. More recently, there
has been a proliferation of smaller proposals being submitted,
motivated in part by the greater likelihood of smaller budgets
fitting into an allocation (e.g. for the Bangladesh activation, 4
proposals of approximately 50k were funded). While there have
been a handful of occasions when funding proposals have been
revised in order to meet the allocation ceiling (e.g. Bangladesh,
where Oxfam proposed a reduction in their budget towards
the end of the project selection process), this appears to be a
grey area and goes against the ethos of the PSC, which asks
committee members to put organisational affiliations aside and
to meet as a group of peers (while budget negotiations require
members to speak on behalf of their organisation). it is in the
interests of the start fund to allocate as close to the ac ceiling
as possible for qualifying projects and to facilitate this, the ac
should either agree an allocation parameter (e.g. 200-250k),
or build into each allocation a percentage margin to better allow
for variation in member budgets.
an imPerfect fit? the resPonse of the start fund to
sPiKes in sloW onset crises:
While the evaluation did not seek to assess project outcomes or
impact, interviews suggest that the response type which had the
most mixed performance in terms of relevance, fund mobilisation
and results was to slow onset crises. There is also considerable
scepticism among some members about the appropriateness of a

24 hour application timeframe and a 45-day intervention period for
slow onset crises. Given the importance of analysis to ensuring the
relevance of member projects, it was suggested that an additional
24-48 hours for the application could significantly strengthen the
relevance and quality of programmes, particularly given that in
slow onset crises, timeliness is rarely the most critical factor in a
response. Linked to this, there were also suggestions to expand
the timeframe for response beyond 45-days. However, there is a
risk that this would complicate a relatively simple and successful
process. the evaluation has found that the use of the fund to
respond to slow onset crises has been contentious among the
members and some of the results have been disappointing. the
ac should either make changes to the process for responding
to these crises to allow additional time for analysis and project
development to strengthen the relevance of the interventions
or it should concede that these response types are not best
served by the start fund.
STepS 3 & 4: applicaTioN & projecT SelecTioN

Members submit an application via email to the Start Team for a
proportion of the overall Start Fund allocation. They have 24 hours
from the start of the initial telecon to submit this application using
a standardised template. The PSC consists of five Start Network
members who use peer review to decide which applicants are best
placed to respond. The committee uses criteria based on the OECD
DAC principles for humanitarian action.
For the 12 allocations made to date, the Start Fund has received
on average five applications and has awarded funding to three
organisations per allocation. Situations where there has been
the greatest number of applications have been among the most
difficult selection processes partly due to the volume of proposals
but also because of significant interest in the Fund.
There was consensus from the members that the project
application template was simple to complete but at the same
time offered sufficient detail for the PSC to be able to discuss
and review each of the proposals as part of the project selection
process. Maintaining this balance is important for two reasons:
the small size of the allocations and the tight deadlines that exist
for submission.
There was some concern about meeting deadlines at the field level
particularly when the Fund had been activated on the weekend
when it was difficult to gather key staff to prepare applications
and support project selection. Members with particularly arduous
proposal sign-off procedures have also struggled to meet deadlines
particularly when there is a requirement to pass applications
between country-based staff and headquarters in order to finalise
submissions. While there was an assumption that partner-led
members may struggle to meet the application deadlines, this
concern was rarely raised during the evaluation and the project
selection database shows that partner-led members have been
among the most successful beneficiaries of the Fund.
The decision to decentralise the PSC occurred relatively soon

after the Fund was launched and the Start Team have done well to
manage the challenges of having to build country-level knowledge
and understanding of the Start Fund and having to select, mobilise
and induct country-based PSCs. There was broad consensus among
Start Fund members that decentralisation has strengthened the
contextual knowledge of the PSC and in so doing has improved
the quality of the process as well as advancing the vision of the
Network. A number of lessons have come from the seven PSCs
that were formed to oversee country-based selection processes:
the challenge of forming in-country Pscs:
One of the more significant challenges for the Start Fund is
meeting its ambitious fund disbursement timeframe, and this
has become more acute with the need to form and induct PSCs
remotely. While the principle should be to form the five-member
PSC from a sample of the in-country Network members, in practice
(because of the limited time available) it has tended to be those
that are most immediately available that have participated which
has raised concerns about partiality. While it is not feasible for
the start network to form teams in every country where the
fund may be activated, some countries could be targeted, either
because of the potential for the start fund to be activated there
or because of the existence of other start network activities
(such as start build). for countries that do not meet either of
these criteria, it is recommended that when the agency survey
is completed by members in advance of an activation, each
nominates a country focal person who is willing to participate in
the Psc. once the ac has determined whether the fund will be
activated, the start team can then use this list as the basis for
forming a Psc with a view to revolving the membership either
for each activation or on an annual basis. While this will mean
that there is a continued need to induct new members into the
PSC process, which is inefficient, it will provide the Start Team
with a standing list of PSC members who can be called on in the
future as well as addressing concerns about partiality.
modifying the selection criteria to simPlify their use:
A review of the project selection criteria show that while they
are appropriate to humanitarian evaluation, they do not lend
themselves to the process of scoring project proposals, and in both
of the case study visits, members staff raised concerns about
the challenge of scoring.26 Given that the project applications are
divided among the PSC members rather than each application
being reviewed by each of the members, a simple process for
scoring is essential for the accuracy and equity of the process. In
acknowledgement of this and keeping in mind that decentralised
PSCs bring together a range of humanitarian practitioners who
have very different skillsets and experiences, it is recommended
that the questions under each of the criteria are re-formulated
and re-phrased so they are less open-ended and lend themselves
more easily to applying a score. While it is understood that
project selection cannot and should not be a quantitative
exercise, given that scoring is an important part of the project
selection process, it is in the interests of transparency and
Concerns that were raised by the PSCs included the lack of familiarity of the staff with the
evaluative criteria used and that some of the sub-questions required analyses that cannot be
26
accuracy that the process provides the greatest assurance

of consistent usage across all of the members (see annex 5
for more detailed proposal for modifying the project evaluation
criteria).
the use of the scores for ProJect selection:
In the briefing they receive, PSC members are told that project
scores should only be used as a guide for discussion and that
there may be other criteria to drive decision-making. While the
flexibility this provides is important given the diverse contexts
in which the Start Fund is activated, it is also open to different
interpretations, and there would be value in listing the additional
issues that may complement or supersede the scores that are
assigned to projects (such as an existing presence or partner
presence in the affected area, the ability to scale-up quickly,
access to standby stocks of relief items that can be mobilised,
etc.). Linked to this, there would be value in ensuring that the PSC
discussions and minutes make note of the bearing that these
additional criteria had on the decisions that were taken. This
will become an increasingly important issue as the membership
grows and becomes more diverse, at which time it will be essential
to justify transparently the basis on which decisions have been
made.
balancing timely ProJect selection With quality
assurance:
The success of the project selection process is contingent
on it yielding high quality projects, and in order to achieve
this, members must submit applications which show a good
understanding of project quality as evidenced by the use of
SPHERE standards or locally agreed cluster standards. While this
has been true for some project applications, it has not been the
case for all, including many that were ultimately selected by PSCs
(see figure 13). A review of proposals in the case study countries
and feedback received from members suggests that there is a
need for the Start Fund to strengthen technical quality assurance.
figure 13
refereNceS made To QualiTy

STaNdardS iN projecT applicaTioNS for
Two STarT fuNd acTivaTioNS
CRITERIA/ACTIvATION
BANGLADESH SOMALIA
% of project applications that referred

explicitly to relevant SPHERE standards
or locally-agreed cluster standards
46.5%
50%
% of project applications that made a

general reference to SPHERE or cluster
standards
15%
0%
% of project applications that made no

reference to SPHERE or cluster standards
38.5%
50%
Were projects selected that did not

make reference to standards
yes
yes
undertaken given the information provided in the application form or the time the PSC has to make
its decision.
The STarT fuNd caN Tell

The STory of iTS laST NiNe
moNThS exTremely cohereNTly aS a reSulT of The
diligeNce of iTS moNiToriNg
aNd evaluaTioN Team
While the existing quality assurance framework requires that

each Start Funded project is subject to a desk-based peer review
process which assesses issues of quality, outputs and outcomes,
a technical assessment is not conducted either before the project
starts or after it closes. For UN pooled funds, technical quality is
assured through the hard-wiring of the Clusters into the technical
review process, however, this has implications for the timeliness
of decision-making and would not be viable for the Start Fund.
There is the potential for the Network members to form their own
technical review panels but this would have significant resource
requirements. With these caveats in mind, three recommendations
are proposed:
l
The project application template and peer review scoring

process should be revised so that members are required to
articulate relevant standards and to routinely interrogate these
as part of the project selection process (see annex 5 for a
modified project selection criteria which includes a greater
focus on technical standards and project quality). This would
ensure that all project applications are based on relevant
standards and would provide a basis for field-based verification.27
The L&EC review process should be complemented with
a field-based review that is triggered after a specific time
period or number of activations. This would provide evidence
to support the assertion that the peer review process is
sufficiently robust to drive up programme quality.
Good practice should be documented and disseminated
via the Start Network website. This could be used to provide
in-country member staff with a repository of high quality
proposals and additional training materials to support the
project application process and could highlight and address
common mistakes that are made.
The recent launch of the Core Humanitarian Standard28 may also

provide the Start Fund with a means of further strengthening
quality assurance. While discussions about how it will be adopted
and used by humanitarian organisations are in their infancy, it
offers a benchmark against which the quality and effectiveness
The process of independent project review could potentially contribute to meeting the need expressed by some members for an evaluation of project outcomes and impact (see section 4.1 analysis
of project results).
28
The Core Humanitarian Standard replaces the 2010 HAP Standard and provides a new and
27
of assistance can be measured.

future-Proofing the ProJect selection tasK:
The majority of Start Fund activations have elicited a fairly modest
number of applications, which is consistent with the ethos of
funding only those best-placed to respond, but two activations
yielded over ten applications each. This proved time-consuming
for the PSC to manage (e.g. the Bangladesh PSC meeting took
over five hours to review 13 applications from which four were
selected for funding). Given the ambitions of the Start Fund to
increase membership, there is the potential for these outlier
activations to become the new norm. the selection process
must offer a means of handling a greater volume of applications.
While this could be achieved by expanding the size of the Psc
beyond its current five members, given the difficulties inherent
in forming the Psc at short notice, this may not offer a viable
solution. instead, it is recommended that a two stage Psc
process is devised, which includes an initial scoring against
the criteria to leave a manageable number of applications for
further discussion. this would offer a transparent process for
addressing activations that elicit a large volume of applications.
STepS 5 & 6: projecT reporTiNg

Start Fund recipients must have an operational project up and
running within seven days of the funding decision that must be
completed within 45 days (in terms of actual spend and completion
of activities). Start Fund recipients must submit the standardised
report form within 60 days of the response starting, two weeks
after completion of the 45 day grant.
The Start Fund benefits from a light project reporting requirement,
and there was consensus from members that it compared
favourably with other donors. While a small number of members
expressed concern by about difficulties in meeting the financial
reporting obligations in such a short space of time, pragmatic
solutions to this have been agreed between the Start Team and
its members in order to overcome these.
consolidated tool for measuring and holding humanitarian agencies to account for their delivery of
principled, accountable and high quality action. See http://www.corehumanitarianstandard.org/
the-standard.
4.3 | the Potential for learning

learning about the start fund
The Start Network has documented its first nine months as part
of an organisational learning commitment that has been prolific in
capturing feedback on the progress that has been made and the
lessons it has learned. Given the youth of the Network and the
diversity of its members, the breadth of information and reflection
that have been made available is impressive, and it offers an
insight not only into the successes of the Network but also into
the challenges that it has faced during the design and build
phase. Efforts have also been made to advance the vision of the
fund by decentralising the peer review process by establishing a
methodology to create post-activation national L&ECs mandated
to harvest lessons from the PSC process in addition to providing
input into project-level and crisis-level learning (this is discussed
in more detail in section 5.3).
Where the learning loop is weakest, however, is in bringing the
disparate strands of learning from the network together and
feedback suggests that the ac (which is also the mandated fund
management body), Psc and l&ec require regular structured
dialogue in order to close the feedback loop to maximise the
potential of strengthening the start fund. While the focus in the
december ac strategy meeting on reviewing fund processes
benefitted from the participation of Psc and l&ec members,
it will be important to bring representatives from the three
committees together on a regular basis if the start fund is to
gain the maximum benefit from the learning it captures. given
that the ac meets four times over the course of the year, it is
recommended that at least one of these meetings is given over
to a formal review of learning about the fund process.
for real-time reporting by members. Given the aspirations of the

Start Network to decentralise decision-making, an online tool
such as this offers considerable efficiencies as well as a means
of receiving real-time feedback on project progress and problems
which could significantly strengthen accountabilities. Despite the
potential it offers, progress in launching the platform has been
laboured and there is a sense of frustration within the L&EC
that the pilot has now ended without DevResults being live. That
is not to say that it has not been used, since project-level data
has been input by a Start Fund secondee. With the secondment
now coming to an end, however, and the platform still not fully
operational, there is considerable uncertainty about its future.
given the potential of the system, maximising its use would
place the start fund in a privileged position in comparison with
other pooled funds and would offer significant benefits to an
expanded membership. now it is important to clarify the future
role of devresults and to quickly reach agreement on how best
to operationalise it.
In addition to the learning activities that are driven by the project
report form, the Start Fund contributes to learning through the
preparation of project case studies and it has also sought to
incentivise learning through the use of a funding facility linked to
projects it funds. Eight project case studies have been prepared
which include the following:
l
learning from the start fund

In addition to documenting lessons about the Fund during
the design and build phase, the L&EC has sought to capture
programmatic learning. To contribute to this, agencies submit a
single form that collects basic M&E data, assesses indicators
and contains reflections on lessons learned. KPIs are checked
for quality and summarised in Crisis Response Summary Sheets
for each activation, and these have been used to generate two
month, six month and nine month reports.29 The L&EC then peerreviews performance using information provided by the M&E
team after each crisis response, and together with the M&E team
follows-up on lessons learned through direct contact with the
decentralised PSC and member staff.
During the pilot phase, efforts have been made to develop a data
capture and visualisation platform using DevResults. Managed by
Relief International on behalf of the Start Fund, the tool has the
potential to support M&E efforts in addition to offering a facility
29
see http://www.start-network.org/resources/#fund
The challenges of working in fragile states

(South Sudan see figure 14);
Is sensitisation effective in changing behaviours to
prevent Ebola transmission (Sierra Leone see figure 14);
Project impact on migration patterns and conflict around
water resources (Somalia);
The unexpected impact of insecurity, access and health
facility closures (Yemen).
In addition to the learning reports, each project is eligible to

apply for an additional 1% of the project value to implement
activities that either increase beneficiary influence or to generate
evidence for lessons learned in field research. To date, the
1% funding facility has been accessed 11 times amounting to
a total investment of 7,581. Emphasis is placed on making
programmatic improvements to emergency response within the
projects specific context and disseminating lessons throughout
the Network. The use of the 1% learning budget has ranged from
beneficiary feedback mechanisms (Muslim Aid), programme
research (International Rescue Committee and Plan International),
project evaluations (Save the Children and International Medical
Corps), learning workshops (Save the Children, Plan International,
Christian Aid, Islamic Relief and CARE) and developing a joint
emergency contingency plan (Handicap International and Plan
International).
figure 14
STarT fuNd projecT learNiNg reporTS30
projeCt CASe Study
[ ]
SpotLIGHt oN:
CHrIStIAN AIdS
StArt FuNd
projeCt
SoutH SudAN
The challenges
of working in
fragile states
projEcT cASE STuDy
[ ]
SpoTLIGHT oN:
STArT FuND
EboLA
rESpoNSE
SIErrA LEoNE
Is sensitisation effective in changing

behaviour to prevent Ebola transmission?
onflict and insecurity are common issues in

fragile states such as South Sudan. For Christian
Aid and its partner, this meant at times it was
dangerous for staff to operate. By using a
sensitive and diplomatic approach towards coordination
with local authorities and security personnel and
continuously adapting project activities Christian Aid and
its partner were able to mitigate some of the challenges
and learn a few lessons in the process.
Almost nine months have passed since conflict broke out in
South Sudan, creating vast humanitarian need in a country
already struggling to meet the basic needs of its diffuse
communities. When the Start Fund launched on April 1, at
least thirteen members of the Network were already on the
ground. At 11:40 am, less than three hours after opening for
business, the Fund was formally alerted by Christian Aid for
the Upper Nile State, one of the worst conflict-affected areas.
The alert described a dire situation of impending famine,
deteriorating access from conflict and coming rains and
funding gaps. In a rapid survey, 12 other members agreed that
the emergency had experienced a spike in the situation and
10 members alone expressed immediate programming needs
of 1,655,000, almost the entire amount available in the
Community sensitisation about Ebola control & prevention (Save the Children).
UNKEA staff walking back from the distribution site
Fund for distribution in the first six months. After a vote of 8

to 3, members allocated 425,000 to respond to immediate
needs with 45 day projects. Seven projects applied, and four
were funded with a total budget of 332,014 not
much in the context of vast need in South Sudan but
SoutH SudAN
enough to meet the immediate needs of 34,377
people through WaSH, shelter, nutrition and health
interventions, preposition supplies before access
Nasir & Maiwut Counties,
Upper Nile State
became impossible and give field teams and
partners time to source 3 million from other
donors.
Challenges of implementing
in contested areas
Christian Aid worked through its local partner,
the Universal Network for Knowledge and Empowerment
Agency (UNKEA), to distribute hygiene kits, water purification
tabs, mosquito nets, drug kits (to health facilities) and
nutrition supplements in Nasir and Maiwut Counties. Even
without the coming rains, it became increasingly hard to reach
targeted communities in these areas of the Upper Nile State.
Fighting between opposition and government forced, including
1
he current Ebola Virus Disease outbreak is the

nature of the resources available to fight it, accurate and
largest ever recorded. The virus has now been
timely information is one of the leading tools for combating
confirmed in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone,
the further spread of the disease. There are many myths to
Nigeria and Senegal. The latest number of
dispel, and sharing knowledge saves lives.
probable and confirmed cases totals 4,269 resulting
ActionAid, Christian Aid, Concern and Save the Children
1
in 2,288 deaths . The West African countries
responded to the outbreak in Sierra Leone from 28
June 12 August with Start Fund grants, a month
affected by the epidemic have neither the
Christian Aid
Kailahun, Kenema,
after the first Ebola case was reported. They
health infrastructure nor the resources to
Pujehun, Kono,
Koinadugu, Kambia,
focused their efforts on social mobilisation and
effectively combat the disease. In fact,
Port Loko, Bo & Western
Ebola is killing some of the very few
Rural/Urban Area
ActionAid
Bo and Kono
medical practitioners needed to fight
its spread.
There are two dimensions to fighting
the spread of Ebola. On the one hand,
Save the Children
& Concern
the international community has provided
Worldwide
Freetown
trained medical staff, funds, protective
equipment and training to mitigate the impact
SIErrA
of Ebola On the other hand, it is critically
LEoNE
important that local communities are informed
about the epidemic. Public policy and awareness
raising campaigns provide real-time information about
how to avoid getting Ebola and how to deal with suspected
cases. Given the severity of the disease, and the limited
As of 6 September, these numbers have been reported to WHO from the Ministries of
Health of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
alThough The fuNd haS

meT iTS kpiS deSpiTe beiNg
uNder-capaciTy, Some of
The STraTegic poSiTioNiNg
aNd forward-lookiNg
TaSkS have NoT progreSSed
due To capaciTy gapS
30
Start Fund Spotlight on cover pages for South Sudan and Sierra Leone, courtesy of the Start Network
While the breadth of the learning has been diverse, the

publication and dissemination of Start Fund learning notes has
offered an accessible and informative repository of knowledge.
as the fund grows and allocations increase (and with this the
1% learning budget also), there is the potential to move from
a reactive strategy that has permitted members to follow their
own learning paths, to the adoption of a proactive strategy
which seeks to direct learning on specific themes, sectors of
intervention or countries. if the l&ec are able to oversee the
development of such an agenda, there is significant potential
for the start fund to make a significant real-time contribution
to guided learning.
4.4 | start team and member caPacity and

resourcing issues
This section seeks to move the focus from an analysis of Fund
processes to an assessment of Start Team and member resourcing
with a view to understanding what resources have been invested
in the Fund, the motivations for member investments and how the
Start Team and members have sought to build the profile of the
Network.
start netWorK members
Members found it difficult to quantify their involvement in
the Start Fund due to the participation of different staff from
different locations in different aspects of the Funds governance
structures but there was considerable support across members
for their participation. After nine months, the alert to allocation
success rate is 63%, and the application to award success rate
is 49%. While members have insufficient data to compare this
success rate with other donors, discussions in the two case
study countries suggest that this is well within tolerance limits
and there is no evidence yet that members feel that the effort
outweighs the potential benefit. It is of note that the reliance
on peer review processes for project selection and learning and
evaluation means that member capacity is often invested in
processes that will ultimately benefit others or the collective and
interviews suggest that there is a strong motivation to support
this, particularly at headquarters level. From a donor investment
perspective, the harnessing of this talent offers significant
added value, particularly from a cost-benefit perspective, as it
makes an important contribution to the performance of the Fund
albeit at cost to the members.
The team believe that a dedicated Start Fund Officer supporting

the Manager should have been adequate to oversee the scope of
operations during the pilot phase (2.25m over none months with
a maximum of two alerts per week), but with the Fund and the
membership due to expand in 2015, the workload will increase
(see section 6 for projected resource requirements). In addition to
the capacity within the team, there is also a dedicated monitoring
and evaluation capacity which is currently contracted to ACF. This
includes an M&E Manager and 25% of a Technical Advisor. This
was complemented by the recent addition of an M&E Officer. It is
this team which has managed all of the M&E tasks on behalf of
the Fund, as well as supporting the broader L&EC.
start team secondees
At the time that funding was agreed, there were discussions
about how to effectively disseminate information about both the
Fund and the Network within member agencies. The re-branding
and change in mandate from the CBHA meant that there was a
need to try to induct key staff into the strategic and operational
aspects of the Network in the shortest possible time. While the
initial intention was for each member to have a focal point, this
was pared back due to cost. Ultimately it was agreed to fund five
secondees who would be embedded in the members during the
pilot phase (although one secondee assignment was cancelled
after only a few weeks in post) and would spend 50% of their
time on common deliverables and 50% of their time on unique
deliverables. The unique deliverables fell under three categories
and included the following:
l
While the members investment of effort is laudable and is a

key strength, ultimately, the effort that members invest in the
Start Fund will need to yield results in order for organisations to
continue to fully support it. While some of these results will be
difficult to quantify in the short-term such as the achievement of
the Start Network vision of shifting the power for some there is
an element of needing to benefit financially from the Fund to justify
the investment made in staff time which was more pronounced
at county-level. As the donor-base and membership of the Fund
changes in the months to come, it will be important that the Start
Team continues to monitor the transaction costs and the impact
this has on member engagement and commitment.
start fund team
While Start Team resource commitments to the Fund should be
easier to estimate, an analysis is complicated by the challenges of
launching the Fund prior to the full team being in place, which has
resulted in members multi-tasking or working outside or beyond
their terms of references.31 Although the Fund has met its KPIs
despite being under-capacity, some of the strategic positioning
and forward-looking tasks (such as relationship-building with
Network members, looking beyond the 45 day funding instrument
to other disbursement models and participating in humanitarian
financing networks) have not progressed due to capacity gaps.
31
enabling individual member capacity to contribute to the

Start Fund;
mapping and understanding the collective Network capacity;
contributing to innovation and learning.
The specific deliverables followed the secondee role title and are
listed below.
l
l
ACAPS partnership lead (Christian Aid);

communications lead (International Medical Corps cancelled after only a few weeks in post);
fundraising lead (War Child - but the role shifted to focus
more on member engagement and training); collaboration
and learning platform lead (Relief International);
external UN/IASC representation lead (Action Against
Hunger although this role was largely taken on by the
Start Team with support from the members).
For these specific tasks, results have been mixed. While

development of the online platform has made good progress, it
has not yet become fully operational. Support to DI and ACAPS is
an area where the secondment has been able to add greater value.
However, by far the most significant contribution of the secondees
has been in raising awareness about the Fund and Network and
in supporting the communication and dissemination efforts of
member organisations. This occupied much of their time and
has been a valuable investment. Activities have included sharing
For example, only in the last month has an officer been recruited to support the Start Fund Manager in overseeing the Fund.
Evaluation of the Start Fund design & build phase
27
ACAPS partnership lead (Christian Aid);

communications lead (International Medical Corps - cancelled after only a few weeks in post);
fundraising lead (War Child - but the role shifted to focus more on member engagement and
training); collaboration and learning platform lead (Relief International);
external UN/IASC representation lead (Action Against Hunger although this role was largely
presentations, headquarters-based discussions, circulation of 4.5 | donor engagement and ParticiPation in
on by thebriefings.
Start Team
supporttofrom
the members).
updatestaken
and one-to-one
It is with
not possible
determine
the strategic direction of the fund
what has been the most effective means of communication

For these
tasks, results
have been
mixed.
WhileIn forming
development
theandonline
platform
has commitment
because
each specific
of the members
is so different
and has
required
the Startof
Fund
in keeping
with a shared
different
support
but
interviews
suggest
that
the
hosting
agency
to
humanitarian
principles,
the
19
NGO
members
made good progress, it has not yet become fully operational. Support to DI and ACAPS is an area have placed
haswhere
tendedthe
to derive
the greatest
significant
emphasis
of decision-making
secondment
hasbenefit
beenfrom
ablethe
tosecondments,
add greater value.
However,
by on
far the
theindependence
most significant
and while other agencies have valued the support that received, about how and where to use the Fund. At the same time, the two
contribution of the secondees has been in raising awareness about the Fund and Network and in
the secondee remains an outsider which limited the influence donors to the Fund have provided important support not only in
supporting the communication and dissemination efforts
of member organisations. This occupied
they had.
choosing to invest in it but also in championing it to their peers. This
much of their time and has been a valuable investment.
Activities evident
have inincluded
has been particularly
the recentsharing
joint fundraising trip to
presentations,
discussions,
circulation
of updates
and one-to-one
briefings.
It is Beyond their
While
the secondeesheadquarters-based
have played an important
role in championing
discuss
the potential
of funding from
Nordic donors.
thenot
Start
Fund
and
in
supporting
member
activities
to
disseminate
support
for
the
Fund,
donors
have
an
understandable
interest in
possible to determine what has been the most effective means of communication because each
information
in
its
early
months,
feedback
received
during
the
monitoring
their
investment.
This
includes
wanting
to
be
involved
of the members is so different and has required different support but interviews suggest that the
evaluation
suggests
that
the
most
significant
influence
will
come
in
the
strategic
direction
of
the
Fund,
as
well
as
ensuring
that
hosting agency has tended to derive the greatest benefit from the secondments, and while other
from within the members own organisations. The implication of risks are being managed, that programmes are of a satisfactory
agencies have valued the support that received, the secondee remains an outsider which limited
this is that as the fund moves from pilot to full activation, while quality and that there are adequate controls in place.
the influence
had.to provide valuable assistance in the
secondments
may they
continue
running of the fund, member staff themselves are better placed to At present, the governance structure of the Fund (figure 15)
engage
their
own
organisations
to bring
about
systemic changes
succeeds in the
striking
a balance
between
the needs for impartial
While
the
secondees
have
played
anthe
important
role in championing
Start
Fund and
in supporting
that
the
Start
Network
is
seeking
to
make.
Given
the
ambitious
decision-making
about
allocations
and
management
member activities to disseminate information in its early months, feedback received during the and offering
change
agenda for
the humanitarian
the Start influence
Network awill
forum
for from
donorswithin
to engage
on issues ofown
strategic interest.
evaluation
suggests
that thesystem
most that
significant
come
the members
has and the diversity of the membership, the evaluation cannot be Participation in the Donor Forum nominally includes both standing
organisations. The implication of this is that as the fund moves from pilot to full activation, while
prescriptive about how this change can best be advanced. In reality, donors and those interested in providing funding in the future, and
secondments
may
continueengagement
to provideand
valuable
in the tend
running
the from
fund,the
member
the route to garnering
institutional
support assistance
for the members
to beof
drawn
differentstaff
governance bodies.
themselves
are better
placed
engage their own organisations
to bring
about the Reform
systemic
changes
Network
will be different
for each
of itstomembers.
In the paper
on Governance
(Start
Network, 2014), the
that the Start Network is seeking to make. Given the ambitious
change
forasthe
humanitarian
Donor Forum
is agenda
described
being
responsible for reviewing
f
i
g
u
r
e
1
5
performance,
and
advising
on
evolution.
It isbe
mostly a device
system that the Start Network has and the diversity of the membership, the evaluation cannot
to
enable
donors
and
the
members
to
be
together
prescriptive about how this change can best on the Start
STarT fuNd goverNaNce STrucTure
Fund journey. The minutes of the june meeting and the recent
1
be
advanced. In reality, the route to
Figure 16: Start Fund governance structure
Donor Forum in December show that the discussions have been
garnering
institutional engagement and
wide-ranging and have included an overview of the performance
support
forand
theprogress
Network
be different
of the Fund
with will
the Start
Fund journey. While this
for
of itssome
members.
haseach
achieved
measure of success in allowing the Fund
to maintain momentum, a lack of clarity about the membership
of the
Donor
Forum (e.g., and
a requirement
for representatives
of
4.5
Donor
engagement
participation
in
all
or
some
of
the
governance
structures
and
committees
to
the strategic direction of the Fund
be in attendance and the purpose of their attendance), and the
In forming the Start Fund and in keeping
purpose of the meetings themselves (e.g., advisory, governance
with
a shared
to humanitarian
or both
and howcommitment
to balance these
functions) makes it difficult to
principles,
the 19
NGO members
have
determine whether
it is meeting
its full potential.
placed significant emphasis on the

given that start of
funddecision-making
members and donors
have a common
independence
about
interest
in
having
a
well-managed
and
well-resourced
fund and
how and where to use the Fund. At the
have a shared motivation to drive forward the ambitious strategy
same time, the two donors to the Fund
for growth, there would be considerable benefit to more clearly
have
provided
important
support
articulating
a terms
of reference
for not
the only
donor forum. this
in
choosing
to purpose
invest and
in itfunction,
but also
in its links to
should
clarify its
describe
championing
it to
their outline
peers.its
This
has beenand establish a
other governance
bodies,
membership
standing agenda
for its meetings.
the agenda should
particularly
evident
in the included
recent injoint
be
an
annual
discussion
about
progress
made
achieving
fundraising trip to discuss the potential towards
of
the vision, a biannual review of the performance and discussion
funding from Nordic donors. Beyond their
about risk management. it is also recommended that at a
support
for the Fund, donors have an
minimum representation from each of the board, assembly and
understandable
interest
in monitoring
their
ac (given its current
start fund
management
investment. This includes wanting to be involved in the strategic direction of the Fund, as well as
4.6 | risK management and control
iT iS iN balaNciNg The
challeNgeS of workiNg
iN complex coNTexTS wiTh
The Need To eNSure The
effecTiveNeSS of
humaNiTariaN aSSiSTaNce
ThaT aN ageNda iS eSTabliShed
for The STarT fuNd To
demoNSTraTe ThaT iT haS
adeQuaTe riSk maNagemeNT
aNd coNTrolS iN place
Risk management and control are being placed under evergreater scrutiny as donors seek to justify aid budgets to their
constituents, and as a consequence humanitarian organisations
have come under ever-greater pressure to prove and improve
their effectiveness. The World Bank estimates that over 50%
of emergency response funds operate in the 20 most corrupt
environments.32 It is in balancing the challenges of working in
complex contexts with the need to ensure the effectiveness of
humanitarian assistance that an agenda is established for the
Start Fund to demonstrate that it has adequate risk management
and controls in place.
During the design and build phase of the Start Fund, during
which the Start Fund has been hosted by Save the Children UK,
overall fiduciary risk has rested with the hosting agency. The
implicit understanding is that donors will be willing to rely on the
governance and control systems of the 19 member agencies that
make up the consortium, all but one of whom are pre-qualified RRF
agencies and all of whom have DFID-approved risk management
processes. They are all governed by trustee boards.
While this may have been satisfactory for the pilot, given ambitions
for the Start Network to spin-off as an independent legal entity
and with a proposed increase in the number of members, there
is now a need to reconsider this position and to put in place a
more robust risk management and control framework which will
be able to provide reassurance to the Board and donors that risk
is being managed and that any irregularities will be identified,
reported on and managed. To this end, a risk management and
risk mitigation strategy was outlined in the Donor Forum meeting
in early December, and a schedule has been agreed to finalise
and implement the strategy in advance of significant changes
being made to the Fund.
In seeking to formulate such a framework, there is considerable
guidance that already exists from other humanitarian pooled funds
(e.g. ERF, CHF and RAPID) and a summary of the approaches they
have adopted is provided in annex 6. In addition to learning from
the experience of other pooled funds, the DECs Accountability
Framework provides a good practice template which offers the
advantage of being known within DFID and by many of the Start
Fund members and which could potentially be adopted by the
Start Fund or used as a template.33
in outlining key risks and articulating a summary risk mitigation
plan, the start fund has begun to identify some of the risk
management infrastructure that will need to be put in place
as the fund prepares to expand. in making progress in this, it
will be important to negotiate a framework that will meet donor
needs for risk management but that is also consistent with the
start networks vision of having a diverse membership which
includes international and national ngos.
The World Bank governance index reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is
exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as capture
of the State by elites and private interests.
32
See Disasters Emergencies Committee (2011) DEC Accountability Framework, May 2011 (internet).
Available from http://www.dec.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/DEC%20Accountability%20Framework%20-%20Explained.pdf
33
5 | The coNTribuTioN of The STarT fuNd To advaNciNg

collaboraTioN, deceNTraliSaTioN aNd diverSiTy
This section assesses the extent to which the operations of the Start Fund are consistent with the Start Networks Declaration of Intent
and the extent to which it has been successful in modelling key aspects of it.
5.1 | collaboration
Crises in the future will demand humanitarian response that involves
many more people and organisations than today. We will need to do
different things, and work together in new ways. Relationships across
boundaries national, cultural, organisational will be key in rising
to this challenge. We will make collaboration central to our action
and not allow competition between our agencies to interfere with our
common objectives34
While collaboration is a fundamental aspect of the Start Networks
vision, it has proved challenging to measure and despite the
drafting of a theory of collaborative advantage which outlines
a methodology to address the gap in evidence which is based
on a database of anecdotes which will be sorted by category
and type as proxy indicators, little progress has been made in
implementing it. Despite the methodological challenges, some
broad observations can be made about collaboration between
members at the system and project level.
collaboration at the system level
With many humanitarian organisations experiencing a dip in
unrestricted income and with donors under pressure to cut aid
budgets, there is a perception that competition for funding is
increasing which makes the Start Fund a collaborative venture
between 19 NGOs - all the more important. By working together,
members are seeking to demonstrate the value of collaboration
in a sector that is often better known for its competition. Where
the challenge lies for the Start Network is in moving from a group
of organisations all of which are either headquartered or who
have back offices in the UK to becoming a truly global entity and
being perceived as such by others.
Despite encouraging progress, it has proved challenging for
members that are formed of international confederations to broker
interest and engagement in the Fund with their sister members.
Almost all of the Start Network members have complex governance
structures that have placed limits on what can be achieved by their
UK or headquarter-based staff. While the potential for funding via
the Network provides an incentive for collaboration, as does the
potential that Start Build and Start Beta offer, one of the more
difficult lessons from the pilot has been that outside of the
members, many NGOs view the Start Network with suspicion
including those that are confederated to Start Fund members.
In recognition of these limits, a change in the emphasis of
34
Start Network Declaration of Intent, 14 February 2014, p1.
communications is now being discussed, from a focus on what

the Network can offer to members to what the Network can offer
the broader humanitarian community. This is a wise move given
the momentum that is gathering around some of Starts more
innovative components, and this could also serve to deflect
discussion away from the current membership to the ambition
to increase the diversity of its members in the future. Given the
ambitious vision, there can be little doubt that it is the Start
Network of the future that has the greatest potential to capture
the imagination of would-be members.
collaboration at the ProJect level
It is of note that despite Networks aspiration to strengthen
collaboration in the way the system responds to humanitarian
crises, it has been agreed not to incentivise collaboration
in practice through its funding and the short time period for
applications to be submitted also tends to militate against this.
It should then come as no surprise that the majority of projects
that have received funding have been for individual members,
albeit with a handful of projects coordinating closely, including the
cholera response in Cameroon (see figure 16).
There have, however, been at least three occasions when Start
Funded members have come together at the end of the activation
period to capture programmatic learning, including after the Ebola
response in Sierra Leone, and following the floods responses in
North-West Bangladesh floods and Nepal (in each of these cases,
the learning workshops were supported by the 1% budget). The
support provided to facilitate joint-learning between practitioners
is noteworthy as it happens all too infrequently, and that it has
yielded some practical actions to strengthen response in the
future is encouraging.
It is also important to be mindful of the breadth of project-level
collaborations that already exists. In Bangladesh, for example,
there are already two large NGO consortia, and in this context
there would no advantage by the Start Network offering its own
brand of collaboration. However, given the use of the Fund for
rapid response and the expectation that Start funding will leverage
additional humanitarian funding, it may be more relevant for Start
Fund members to work together at a country-level to lobby for
funding for those affected by crises.
looking to the future of a start fund with more members and a
larger disbursement pot, there would be value in the ac considering
under what circumstances it might incentivise collaborative
figure 16
learNiNg from The coordiNaTed reSpoNSe by STarT fuNd memberS iN camerooN

overview of The reSpoNSe: A cholera epidemic was first detected in the Far North Region of Cameroon in April 2014. When
the Start Fund was activated on 29 July there were more than 1,200 reported cases. Without immediate action, local organisations
feared the outbreak would lead to the same situation as the 2010 epidemic, which infected 10,000 people and killed nearly 1,000.
Two agencies, already operating in the region, were awarded Start Fund grants and worked together to fulfil three main objectives:
procure medicines, raise awareness about cholera prevention and improve sanitation in the affected camps and villages.
leSSoNS from The reSpoNSe: Collaboration among the Start Fund projects increased efficiency and value for money in the
response and led to unintended added value in other areas.200 countries.
l
l
l
early in the project timelines, imc and Plan organized a workshop with local officials from the ministry of health and Water
authorities to share the objectives and intended results, jointly resolving issues of beneficiary selection criteria and accessing
remote villages.
imc and Plan coordinated procurement of aquatabs to receive a reduced rate on the supply.
the areas of operation were divided amongst the two agencies to avoid duplication and increase their coverage. certain activities
such as the disinfection campaign were administered across both of the agencies target communities to expand the reach.
coordination was so successful between start network projects that the agencies involved have started coordinating in other
contexts on non-start fund grants, including on projects in gaza.
response to test the benefits of this in the same way as it has

tested a range of different responses during the pilot phase. This
must be predicated on a clear added value as there was in the
Cameroon activation, a small response where two members found
significant added value by working in partnership. The lessons from
this partnership certainly provide grounds for seeking to ensure that
collaboration is not merely confined to the system and process level.
5.2 | decentralisation
We aim to shift the centre of humanitarian gravity, so that decision
making and leadership take place at the front line and affected
people are empowered to improve their lives. Everyone has a
contribution to make to reduce the risk of crises, whether it is at a
global or local level, but we need to ensure that local ownership and
capacity drive humanitarian response.35
decentralising start fund decision-maKing
There was consensus from all the participants of the review that
the decision to decentralise the PSC has achieved the dual goal
of increasing the relevance of project selection and implementing
a key tenet of the Start Network, that of decentralising decisionmaking. Reflections from the pilot in yemen which partnered a
decentralised committee with a ghost committee in London
highlighted the belief that local knowledge changed the outcomes
of project selection. The PSC in London trusted the fairness
35
Start Network Declaration of Intent, 14 February 2014, p1.
and relevance of the locally made selection decisions precisely

because the local knowledge was so obviously advantageous.36
This perception was endorsed by the L&EC albeit with the caveat
that the advantages were perceived rather than evidenced. In
discussing the decentralisation of project selection, it is also
important to note that most other pooled funds make decisions at
a country-level, either through an internal team (RAPID in Pakistan)
or through the Humanitarian Country Team (ERF, CHF, CERF) and
so before decentralisation, the Start Fund was an exception.
In addition to having its benefits, decentralisation has required that
compromises are made; the Start Team now have limited oversight
of the process and there is a continuing need to invest time in
inducting new PSC members which takes time and has increased
transaction costs. Although an assessment of whether the change
in locus of decision-making has been translated into better
project outcomes is beyond the scope of the evaluation, there is
certainly evidence to suggest that it has improved ownership and
engagement of member organisations at a country-level.
Similar efforts to decentralise some functions of the L&EC have
also offered an opportunity to address the field-headquarters
gap in learning and to enrich the knowledge distilled from Start
Funded projects. In seeking to test the potential benefits of the
decentralised L&EC function, the Committee developed a set of
assumptions to test:
36
Myanmar Alert Project Selection Committee Meeting Minutes, July 3rd, 2014
The declaraTioN of iNTeNT

placeS ThoSe affecTed by
criSeS aT The ceNTre of a
humaNiTariaN SySTem ThaT
NeedS To fuNdameNTally
ShifT iTS ThiNkiNg To uSe
global reSourceS To meeT
local prioriTieS
l
Local knowledge improves the process and results of

project peer-review;
Local peer-review replaces the need for excessive reporting
from projects;
Local reviewers are better-placed to ensure that the most
useful lessons are identified (uptake);
Keeping learning local helps ensure that lessons quickly
reach those who can use them (impact);
Local peer-review incentivises improved quality of data
collected and reported;
Local learning and peer-review results will still allow sharing
with the broader Network.
At the time the evaluation was undertaken, there was no consolidated

analysis from the peer reviews, however interviews with committee
members suggest that decentralising the process has allowed
learning to be captured at the country-level where it is of the most
immediate practical value and as a consequence offers far greater
potential for uptake with the caveat that this is yet to be proven.
While these may be modest outcomes, the fact that tangible
progress has been made in an area of humanitarianism where
policy and rhetoric far outpace practice is encouraging. The more
complicated issue will be to critically examine how to harness
this same local knowledge to strengthen other of the Start Fund
processes. While the evaluation has been critical of geographic or
37
Start Network Governance Reform Final Proposal, 21st May 2014, p.5.
thematic guidance from the UK-based AC, this would be of greater

relevance if it was based on local priorities informed by member
staff in the affected countries.
More challenging still have been the requests by some members
for the Network to go further and faster in decentralising both
Network and fund management functions with the concept of
regional funds and of a network of networks being proposed
for the future. The Network still lacks agreement on this issue
and its current position that efficiencies are likely to be achieved
only with a single global legal entity called the Start Network
with a single administrative and reporting structure, and a single
Start Fund Sub-Committee responsible for Allocation decisions,37
suggests that this is unlikely to materialise any time soon.
strengthening the accountability of members to
affected communities
Also relevant to a discussion about decentralisation are the efforts
that have been made by Start Fund members to give greater voice
to those affected by crises. The Declaration of Intent places those
affected by crises at the centre of a humanitarian system that
needs to fundamentally shift its thinking to use global resources
to meet local priorities. As part of this agenda to shift the power
is the importance of being more connected and responsive to
the needs of crisis-affected people.
Given that the evaluator did not visit project sites or meet
with those who were targeted by Start Funded humanitarian
response, it is not possible to comment on the extent to which
the members have managed to deliver against a people-centred
vision of humanitarian response in practice. However, a review
of a selection of applications and project reports supplemented
by feedback from interviews conducted during the country case
study visits suggests that most agencies have sought community
participation in the assessment, design and implementation of
their projects and that many have provided information to targeted
communities and elicited feedback and complaints.
5.3 | diversity
The humanitarian system must increase its diversity and tolerance
of alternative approaches. We aim for a humanitarian ecosystem
that contains organisations of different sizes, types, cultures and
modes of response, in a state of continual experimentation and
growth.38
diversity and humanitarian action
The lack of a field focus to the evaluation makes it difficult to
comment on the diversity of its humanitarian action beyond what
the Fund reports. The Start Fund estimates that between its
19-members, it has access to over 6,700 partner organisations39
(local, national and international) that can respond to
humanitarian need in over 200 countries, including in some of
the most remote and difficult contexts. Moreover, in its first nine
months, 45% of the 2.1m that has been disbursed has been
passed through to local and national organisations. A review of
the project documents reveals a diverse mosaic of secular, faithbased, community-based and national organisations offering a
range of competencies across different sectors of humanitarian
response.
diversity and membershiP
While Start Fund projects often benefit from diverse partnerships,
the membership of the Network is composed solely of international
NGOs. Of these, the majority are headquartered in the UK with
others headquartered in Europe and the United States. At such
an early stage, it is unsurprising that there has been a predilection
for targeting higher capacity INGOs for membership. While this
has offered reach into members existing networks of local and
national NGOs, it offers only modest progress towards modelling
the vision of diversity. It has also led to perceptions of being a
club of UK-based organisations.
Given the plans to expand the membership, there is a possibility
for the Start Fund to begin to address this imbalance. However, a
Start Network Declaration of Intent, 14 February 2014, p1. 39 See http://www.start-network.org/

how/start-fund/#.VJAPSyusWSo. Accessed on 16/12/2014.
See CAFOD (2013) Funding at the sharp end, CAFOD (internet). Available at http://reliefweb.int/
38
40
dilemma is anticipated. On the one hand, the need for the Fund to
better role-model its diversity in order to counter misperceptions
and to make progress against its Declaration of Intent provides
a compelling argument to seek membership from the developing
world. On the other hand, there is a growing urgency to expand the
donor base with a view to becoming truly multi-donor, which will
bring significant benefits in terms of the reach and potential impact
of the Fund. The challenge lies in resolving the tension between
diversifying membership and meeting donor requirements for risk
management. In a paper prepared by the Start Network on behalf
of its members for the DFID-NGO forum, the dilemma that arises
from this is articulated well.
It is widely agreed within the international humanitarian NGO
community that more response capacity should be built at the local
level. This is supported by a growing body of evidence arguing for a
more decentralised humanitarian system. But at the same time it is
recognised that progress cannot be made in this area unless donor
control and risk management systems are transformed.
The aspiration that the Start Network has to increase its diversity
has the potential to be a disincentive for donors seeking to invest
in the Fund. Phrased differently, the risk appetite of the Start
Funds donors may stifle the ability of the Start Fund to diversify
in the directions that best meets the aspirations articulated in its
vision. This is perhaps the most significant existential threat to
the Start Funds future as it has the potential to be divisive both
within the membership and between members and donors.
the start fund should do more to clarify how it plans to deliver
key aspects of the vision and in particular how it will diversify
its membership (a detailed recommendation on this issue is
made in section 6.1). There are a number of established pooled
funds (ERF, CHF, RAPID) that have successfully accommodated
a diverse membership and the lack of access that national and
local NGOs have to humanitarian financing is a key lobbying issue
for a number of the Start Funds members.40
sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/CAFOD%20national%20ngo%20financing%20study%20July%20
2013%20%283%29.pdf
6 | The fuTure SuSTaiNabiliTy of The fuNd

This section will assess the extent to which evidence from the design and build phase supports future scale-u, and discusses the
implications of a scale-up on the Start Team and wider Network.
6.1 | the challenge of achieving a sustainable

start fund
Given the potential of the Start Fund to strengthen humanitarian
response, there is an understandable desire to expand scale and
size of the donor base, but while DFID has agreed to scale-up
its funding, it remains the only donor that has made a funding
commitment for 2015. Consistent with the value it places on
diversity, efforts have been made by the Start Fund to fundraise
with non-traditional donors and foundations. While these have
not yet yielded tangible offers of funding, they offer possibilities
for the future. Fundraising visits, supported by representatives
from DFID and Irish Aid, have also been made to several of the
traditional donors, particularly those which have a track record
for supporting other pooled funds. While these have yielded
some interest, they have also come up against misperceptions
about the Fund that necessitated explanation about the global
ambitions of the Network.
While the Start Fund can tell the story of its last nine months
extremely coherently as a result of the diligence of its monitoring
and evaluation team and has an ambitious vision for transforming
the humanitarian system, it has been modest in its communication
of how action in the short and medium-term can translate into
achieving the vision in the long-term. This lack of clarity has the
potential to cause disharmony among the members. This is of
figure 17
The complexiTieS of growiNg The STarT fuNd

Put in its starkest form, the Start Fund must make a decision
about whether to adopt a pragmatic growth-led approach
that seeks to prioritise the expansion of its donor base with
a view to achieving a sustainable Fund or to adopt a visionled approach that prioritises a more proactive diversification
of membership and decentralisation of the Fund. Additional
funding is most likely to come from traditional European
donors which will likely require inviting additional European
NGOs into the membership which will do little to assuage
perceptions of the fund as a club of international NGOs.
Conversely, diversifying the membership to include national
and local NGOs will increase donor perceptions of risk and
may act as a disincentive for new and existing donors.
41
particular concern at the present time due to the contradictory

pressures that exist to decentralise the fund and diversify the
membership versus the need to expand the donor base (see
figure 17).
Overcoming the dilemma or finding middle ground which expands
the donor base and increases member diversity will require
important choices to be made as well as some compromises. It will
be in discussing these issues and providing members and donors
a road map of how the Start Fund is going to navigate through
them that will offer the best chance of growth in the future. it is
recommended that the start fund produce a three-year strategy
which includes a set of tactics for the start fund that are
consistent with the declaration of intent and which gives clear
direction. this would offer a powerful tool to build consensus and
galvanise support of the membership and donor forum.
Beyond an internal need for clarity about the future direction of
the Fund, there are also external drivers. There is the possibility
of a growth in pooled funds that target NGOs (e.g. in Canada
and potentially the Netherlands and the United States and there
is also discussion about an OCHA-managed pooled fund for
NGOs).41 While the Start Fund should not compete with these,
there is a need for it to position itself to coexist and coordinate
with them, particularly given the emphasis that the Declaration of
Intent places on collaboration.
6.2 | fit for the future? the imPlications of

fund groWth on the management model
In preparing for future growth, the Start Team has made a series of
resourcing projections for an expanded fund size and associated
increase in alerts and activations (figure 18).
While the Team and the members have been extremely diligent in
supporting and adapting the Fund in its first year, the additional
funding received from DFID will give little opportunity for respite.
Projecting a requirement for two Fund officers from the beginning
of next year, there is an immediate need for the Start Team to fasttrack recruitment to ensure that adequate capacity is in place.
While members will not be affected by the growth in the same
way, as their commitments are split between country-level teams
and headquarters-based staff, it is likely that the workloads of
the AC and L&EC will increase significantly. It will be important
that members continue to support the Start team and the
Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2014) What OCHA could do to increase field effectiveness through enhanced NGO partnership. Discussion Paper, December 2014.
figure 18
fuTure reSourciNg projecTioNS for fuNd

growTh To 20m pa
diSburSemeNT poT of 10m pa, 50 acTivaTioNS;
peak raTe aT 2 per week:
l grant management, alert/allocation oversight/support to
committees: 2x fund officers (oversight start fund manager);
l start team decision-making (light process):
2x start team + 1x member agency adviser;
l m&e budget: 215K.
diSburSemeNT poT of 15m pa, 60 acTivaTioNS
per aNNum, peak aT 2-3 per week:
committees: 2x fund officers (oversight start fund manager);
2x start team + 1x member agency adviser;
l m&e budget: 250K (dependent on the volume of projects).
diSburSemeNT poT of 20m pa, 80 acTivaTioNS,
peak aT 4 per week:
committees: 3x fund officers;
3x start team + 2x member agency advisers
(two groupings to cover several decisions per week);
l m&e budget: 340K (dependent on the volume of projects).
figure 19
projecTed operaTiNg coSTS aS a perceNTage

of The STarT fuNd budgeT 2014-2017
42
43
PERIOD
BUDGET
DONORS
OPERATING
COST42
fy 2014
2.515,392
DFID &
Irish Aid
22%
fy 2015
(01/2015 - 03/2016)
11m
DFID
19.3%
fy 2016
(04/2016 - 03/2017)
8.5m
DFID
16.2%
fy 2017
(04/2017 - 03/2018)
7.8m
DFID
8.6%
The operating costs are estimations provided by the Start Fund based on DFID funding projections.
The projections do not take into account any additional costs associated with establishing the Start
achieviNg TheSe meTricS

wiTh a larger fuNd, doNor
pool aNd memberShip will
be a much harder TaSk aNd
will reQuire SigNificaNTly
greaTer reSourceS
committees in responding to the additional pressures that will

be placed upon them. One practical way of achieving this that
was discussed during the AC Strategy meeting in December was
through members loaning staff to the Start Team when capacity
was stretched such as in the event of multiple activations.
From an efficiency perspective, one of the implications of a larger
fund is that the percentage operating costs are projected to
decrease (see figure 19).43 Given that the long-term viability of the
Start Fund requires an increase in donor base, the ambition of the
Start Team that operating costs level out at 6% may be achievable.
While it is impossible to determine with any accuracy the impact
of a larger fund on transaction costs and agility, experience from
the UN pooled funds suggests that there is a correlation between
the size of the fund and the bureaucracy required to oversee
and account for its use. This offers an important warning for the
Start Fund and suggests that while a pooled fund of 2.25m
from two donors, disbursed to 19 members through a peer review
mechanism can attain an impressive 72 hour disbursement
time, achieving these metrics with a larger fund, donor pool
and membership will be a much harder task and will require
significantly greater resources.
Acknowledging that the 10m allocation for 2015 from DFID will
go far beyond the limits of what was tested during the design
and build phase, the recent AC strategy meeting focused on
discussing the implications of an expanded disbursement pot. It
will be important that these discussions continue and that they
take account of projected changes in the number of members
and the scale of the fund to anticipate and resolve potential pinch
points. Beyond proposing the evolution of existing processes to
accommodate growth, it will also be important to consider more
radical changes that may be necessary to preserve the USP of the
fund which may include establishing sister funds or decentralising
the fund. These issues should be addressed as part of the 3-year
strategy that is recommended earlier in this report.
Fund as an independent legal entity.
The members of the Start Network and Team have proved worthy
custodians of the funding entrusted to them by Irish Aid and DFID.
While the fund size has been modest in comparison with other
pooled funds, there is ample evidence of diligent fund oversight
and management that demonstrate some encouraging results
both in terms of what can be achieved through collaborative action
and the potential that the fund has for improving humanitarian
outcomes.
That is not to say that proof of concept will guarantee the future
success of the Fund. The evaluation has highlighted a number of
issues both strategic and operational that will be important to
address to strengthen the Fund in the future. Looking forwards,
a number of challenges lie ahead, and while the evaluation can
offer recommendations for how the Fund can position itself to
navigate these, it will only be through galvanising collective action
and breathing life into its vision that it will stand the greatest
likelihood of long-term success.
7.1 | Priority recommendations

Priority recommendations are those that (i) address the issues
of most concern, (ii) are strategic in nature, or (iii) have the
potential to significantly strengthen the relevance, effectiveness
and sustainability of the Start Fund. Nine recommendations have
been assigned priority status.
iT will oNly be Through

galvaNiSiNg collecTive
acTioN aNd breaThiNg
life iNTo iTS viSioN ThaT
The fuNd will STaNd The
greaTeST likelihood
of loNg-Term SucceSS
Priority recommendations
7 | coNcluSioN
1 | STreNgTheNiNg aNTicipaTioN
[ref: p11] Anticipation is an area that
the Start Fund has the potential to
strengthen given the operational reach of
its 19-members and the resources that
already exist in the Fund. By participating
in the Early Warning Early Action Group
and by integrating its analysis into its
decision-making processes, the Fund could
improve the potential for early action as
well as strengthening its complementarity
with the Central Emergency Response Fund.
2 | coordiNaTiNg wiTh oTher
Ngo-led pooled fuNdS [ref. p13]
The similarities between the Canadian
Humanitarian Assistance Fund and the
Start fund suggests that there would be
added value in establishing more formal
coordination mechanisms between the two
funds which should include at a minimum,
notification of alerts and activations.
With the possibility of similar funds being
established in the future, and given the
emphasis placed by the Start Fund on
collaboration, there is scope for the Start
Team to role-model this.
3 | evaluaTiNg projecT ouTpuTS
aNd ouTcomeS [ref. p16] Given the
focus of this evaluation on process and
governance issues, there is a keen interest
from the members to look in more detail
at project outputs and outcomes. Despite
the methodological complexities, by
commissioning a field-focused evaluation
which prioritises project review and which
focuses on interviews with field staff,
partners and crisis-affected communities,
it should be possible to build up a more
detailed picture of changes that can be
attributed to the disbursement of timely
Start Funding. Furthermore, if a range of
different activations were selected (e.g.
rapid/slow onset/spikes etc.), then it may
be possible to strengthen the evidence
base for the types of activation where the
Fund can have greatest effect.
4 | meaSuremeNT of fuNd
leveragiNg [ref. p17] The key
Performance indicator on fund leveraging
is poorly articulated and exaggerates the
funding that is raised as a consequence

of the Start Funding received by members.
If fund leveraging is considered to be an
important metric, then members should
only report funds that were raised as a
direct consequence of the Start Funding. An
accompanying question which would assist
in strengthening the evidence base for the
45-day activation period would be whether
members received follow-on funding for the
specific Start Funded intervention.
5 | delegaTiNg allocaTioN
proceSSeS To The STarT Team
[ref. p19] With a view to a future Start
Fund with more members and a larger
fund size that is likely to be activated more
frequently, some concern was raised about
the mechanism to trigger a delegated
process. One means of strengthening
this would be to more clearly outline the
dimensions and complexity of a crisis
in the alert note. Requiring the alerting
agency to outline the crisis against a predetermined set of criteria (which could
include the number of people/refugees/
displaced persons affected, the geographic
area affected, the political complexity
of the crisis, security/risk rating) would
simplify the identification of crises which
may lend themselves to Start Team
oversight.
6 | maiNTaiNiNg The iNdepeNdeNce
of The STarT fuNd [ref. p20] It
is important that the Start Network
communicates and defends the
independence of the Fund, ensuring
that activations are consistent with the
commitment of its members to the
humanitarian imperative.
7 | QueSTioNiNg The relevaNce of
The STarT fuNd for reSpoNSe To
Slow oNSeT criSeS [ref. p20] The
evaluation has found that the use of the
Fund to respond to slow onset crises has
been contentious among the members
and some of the results have been
disappointing. The Allocation Committee
should either make changes to the process
for responding to these crises to allow
additional time for analysis and project
development to strengthen the relevance

of the interventions or it should concede
that these response types are not best
served by the Start Fund.
8 | STreNgTheNiNg The imparTialiTy
of The projecT SelecTioN proceSS
[ref. p22] To strengthen the impartiality
of the project selection process, it is
recommended that the questions under
each of the criteria are re-formulated and
re-phrased so they are less open-ended and
lend themselves more easily to applying a
score. While it is understood that project
selection cannot and should not be a
quantitative exercise, given that scoring is
an important part of the project selection
process, it is in the interests of transparency
and accuracy that the process provides the
greatest assurance of consistent usage
across all of the members.
9 | STreNgTheNiNg QualiTy
aSSuraNce iN The projecT
SelecTioN proceSS [ref. p22]
The project application template and
peer review scoring process should be
revised so that members are required
to articulate relevant standards and to
routinely interrogate these as part of the
project selection process. This should be
complemented with a field-based review
that is triggered after a specific time
period or number of activations. This would
provide evidence to support the assertion
that the peer review process is sufficiently
robust to drive up programme quality.
10 | cloSiNg The gap iN The
goverNaNce feedback loop [ref.
p24] The Allocation Committee (which
is also the mandated fund management
body), Project Selection Committee and
Learning and Evaluation Committee
require a regular structured dialogue
in order to close the feedback loop to
maximise the potential of strengthening
the Start Fund. Given that the Allocation
Committee meets four times over the
course of the year, it is recommended
that at least one of these meetings is
given over to a formal review of learning
about the Fund process.
11 | clarifyiNg The role of

The doNor forum [ref. p28]
Given that Start Fund members and
donors have a common interest in
having a well-managed and well-resourced
Fund and have a shared motivation to
drive forward the ambitious strategy for
growth, there would be considerable
benefit to more clearly articulating a
terms of reference for the Donor Forum.
This should clarify its purpose and
function, describe its links to other
governance bodies, outline its membership
and establish a standing agenda for its
meetings. Included in the agenda should
be an annual discussion about progress
made towards achieving the vision, a
biannual review of the performance and
discussion about risk management. It is
also recommended that at a minimum
representation from each of the Board,
Assembly and Allocation Committee
(given its current Start Fund management
12 | eSTabliShiNg a riSk
maNagemeNT aNd coNTrol
framework [ref. p29] In outlining
key risks and articulating a summary risk
mitigation plan, the Start Fund has begun
to identify some of the risk management
infrastructure that will need to be put in
place as the Fund prepares to expand.
In making progress in this, it will be
important to negotiate a framework
that will meet donor needs for risk
management but that is also consistent
with the Start Networks vision of having
a diverse membership which includes
international and national NGOs.
13 | agreeiNg The fuTure of The
fuNd [ref. p33 & 34] It is recommended
that the Start Network produce a
three-year strategy which includes a road
map and tactics for the Fund that are
consistent with the Networks Declaration
of Intent and which provides clarity over
the vexed issue of vison-led versus
donor-led growth. This would offer a
powerful tool to build consensus and
galvanise support of the membership
and Donor Forum.
aNNex 1
Summary TermS of refereNce
terms of reference for the external evaluation of
the start netWorKs start fund 6 month design and build Phase
1 | summary
The Start Fund will conduct its first external evaluation in October/November/December to evaluate the
six month design and launch phase (April-September).
The Start fund is an innovative multi-donor pooled funding mechanism that both draws on traditional
humanitarian bilateral donors and contributions by Start Network members as well as looking ahead to
newly emerging humanitarian donors and major private philanthropy. It consists of a network of UK-based
INGOs (hosted by Save the Children) and gives small scale funding (up to 300k per organisation over a
45 day window) to members and their frontline CSOs, complementing the existing humanitarian financing
system by focusing on initial rapid response to low-profile, underfunded, emergencies. It ensures funds
are released to responders within 72 hours and work starts within 7 days. The Fund will enable more lives
to be saved, suffering alleviated and resilience protected of crisis-affected communities worldwide.
To date the Start Fund has secured funding of up to 30,511,177 GBP over three years, with contributions
from two national government donors; Ireland (Irish Aid[1]) and the United Kingdom (DFID[2]). Both donors
allied with the 19 Start Network agencies in recognising that there is a gap within the humanitarian funding
architecture for rapid funding for small-medium scale emergencies.
The first phase of the Start Fund, April to September 2014, represents a design and build period where the
Fund Is open for allocations to crisis alerts, whilst simultaneously the infrastructure and fund management
processes are being tested and refined. Efforts to establish robust mechanisms for running the fund when
it is taken to scale and with an evidence base behind them include: Building engagement in member
agencies for utilising the Start Fund, producing and considering emergency alerts, and establishing peerto-peer fund allocation and project selection mechanisms. Learning and operational capacity development
to date has enabled production of a Start Fund Business Plan and contributed to efforts to leverage funds
from other donors for the Start Fund.
The evaluation is a key step in the design and build phase, as it is an opportunity for an independent
analysis of activities and progress so far. The evaluation will ask questions about the Funds performance
and will cover operational (e.g. processes) and some programmatic (e.g. activities) information. The
evidence generated will be used by the Start Team, the Start Fund committees and the Start Network
board to operationalise lessons learned and improve the Start Fund. The evaluation will be freely shared
with members inside the network, donors and any other external partners.
The Start Network is committed to full transparency, authentic reflection about successes and failures and
including as many voices as possible involved in or affected by the Start Fund, including local partners and
affected communities. The evaluation will be a significant step in fulfilling this commitment.
The evaluation will be completed by a team of two consultants, a primary consultant as lead and a secondary
consultant. The consultancy team will be responsible for their own collaboration in completing the activities
effectively and on-time, as outlined in the work plan below (2.3) according to the timeframes (2.1).
Irish Aid is the Irish Governments programme for overseas development and is a division of the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade https://www.irishaid.ie/
[1]
The Department for International Development (DFID) is a United Kingdom ministerial department
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-development
[2]
2 | the Programme
name of the Programme:
start fund, 6 month design Phase
location:
london and 2 selected crisis resPonse locations
starting date:
aPril 2014
end date:
sePtember 2014
2.1 | Programme overvieW
financing for emergency

response is often only available
when a crisis has already
escalated and attracted
media attention. the start
network has created a
funding mechanism to deliver
humanitarian aid fast when
disaster threatens. Known
as the start fund, this
multi-donor pooled fund is
managed by ngos, for ngos.
the start fund complements
existing humanitarian funding
mechanisms, but it is unique
in that it is triggered by an
impartial decision-making
process. this means that
ngos can respond quickly
to low-profile or underfunded
emergencies.
the start fund was launched

on 1st april 2014 following
a successful two-year pilot
2010-2012. the start fund is
now a multi-donor pooled fund
for ngos and their civil society
partners which operates at
a global level and is owned
and managed by the start
networks 19 ingo members.
the start fund is positioned to
act as a strategic, small-scale
early response mechanism
for low-profile, under-the-radar
emergencies worldwide by
being focused on immediate
response, and grants being
made available within 72 hours
of a crisis alert for a maximum
of 45-day interventions.
by the end of the six-month
design and build phase

(april september), the start
fund has been activated
for nine crises with a total
amount awarded of 1.7
million to 23 selected. testing
project selection and learning
and evaluation peer-review
processes at country level has
highlighted the high utility of
up-to-date contextual data
to inform decision-making
and the testing has informed
the adjusting and aligning
of strategic approach of the
three committees that govern
the use of the start fund: the
allocation, Project selection
and learning & evaluation
committees.
2.2 | general obJective
the dfid logframe (for the first 6 months) is articulated as folloWs:

imPact:
start fund promotes early action and reduces suffering, mortality and morbidity in
around 40 crises per year.
outcome: start fund design completed, and has built capacity to function at scale and start
disbursements to crises.
2.3 | start fund theory of change

enabling ngos to manage their own emergency response fund will enable the best placed
organisations to respond to more emergencies, more rapidly, which will strengthen their responsive
capacity to provide live-saving humanitarian assistance to reduce the suffering, mortality and
morbidity of affected populations.
see the start fund handbooK for the detailed theory of change.
2.4 | Programme activities

the start fund was launched on 1st april 2014
and since has been activated 9 times
(as of 30th september) in response to:
the south sudan food crisis (April - june)
displacement in myanmar, Kachin (April - july)
l food crisis in somalia (june - july)
l ebola in sierra leone (july - August)
l conflict in yemen (july - August)
l cholera in cameroon (july - August)
l flooding in bangladesh (August - September)
l flooding in nepal (September - October)
l refugees in turkey (September - October)
in addition, the start fund has been alerted

but not activated 5 times:
l
l
l
l
flooding in afghanistan (May)

idP/refugee returnees in Pakistan (May)
conflict in Pakistan (june)
conflict in drc (August)
earthquake in china (August)
See Summary sheets of Start Fund Story after

6 months and Crisis Summary Sheets for more
information.
the start team has grown to a team of 8 people hosted by save the children, 6 people embedded in
member agencies (5 temporarily plus the m&e team) and multiple consultants working on discrete
pieces of work. the m&e team is hosted by action against hunger. see organigram for further details.
3 | the evaluation
3.1 | target user(s) of the evaluation
Primary users:
secondary users:
1. start team
4. Prospective start network members
2. start network members
5. donors (dfid, irish aid and interested donors)
3. start fund committees
3.2 | obJective(s) of the evaluation

the main objective of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the start fund during the
6-month design period to draw lessons and areas for improvement, in order to inform the on-going
development of the start fund. the evaluation will provide clear recommendations for the start fund
and inform a learning workshop for start network members. the overall purpose of this evaluation
will be for learning, especially to support the scale-up of the fund.
3.3 | scoPe of the evaluation
the questions below will serve to focus the evaluative work. the evaluation team will be required to produce an inception report during the
preparation stage in which they will detail what questions they will pursue in order to comprehensively cover the questions and additional
points below. the evaluation team will be expected to critically assess the questions below, and will have some space to suggest alternative
wording and alternative questions. this will be shared with the m&e team, who will provide feedback to ensure all necessary areas are
covered. there is expected to be a degree of flexibility with the evaluation questions, to ensure interrogation of the questions does not become
unnecessarily blinded or pre-fabricated.
the questions have been divided into three tyPes:
headliNe QueSTioNS are the most important questions for the
evaluation and interrogate the main objectives of the Start Fund. The
evaluation will be expected to provide comprehensive and robust analysis for
them. They represent the main learning points expected from the evaluation
and should guide prioritization of supporting questions.
SupporTiNg QueSTioNS are more specific questions that fall under

the headline questions and are separated thematically. The evaluation is
expected to provide evidence for each of these questions but not necessarily
to the same level of detail. They should be prioritized by the extent to which
they support the headline questions.
SubTexT QueSTioNS are less-priority questions that would provide

added value from the evaluation if addressed. In some cases they may
provide more context or represent a suggested direction of enquiry for
answering the supporting and/or headline questions.
headliNe QueSTioNS
1 Is the Start Fund being activated for the most appropriate responses
for a 45 day funding mechanism (small to medium scale,
under-the-radar emergencies)? (Appropriateness)
2 Is the Start Fund effective in promoting early action in responding
to humanitarian crises in line with delivering its Declaration of Intent?
(Effectiveness/Efficiency)
3 Is the Start Fund supporting local and decentralised capacities of
partner organisations for crisis response? (Relevance / Sustainability)
4 To what extent has the design and build phase (April September)
tested the Networks appetite and capacity for the Start Funds type
of 45 day funding mechanism, and would scale-up of the Fund meet
this? (Sustainability)
SupporTiNg QueSTioNS
Theme 1 - Start fund processes
5 How efficient are we? Are we meeting our speed KPIs (72 hours, 7 days,
45 days)? Which is the most applicable KPI, and against which context
is it most appropriate (eg type of emergency, rapid vs. spike in slow
onset crisis, etc)?
6 To what extent is the Start Fund transparent to all stakeholders?
7 How rigorous is the decision-making of the subcommittees (allocation,
project selection and learning & evaluation)?
8 Are the Funds feedback loops effective for internally evaluating every
crisis response? How can actionable recommendations from the L&E
Committee improve decision-making?
9 Are the forms (online surveys, applications, reporting forms, etc.)
collecting the information needed at a high enough quality with minimal
burden, as indicated by field teams and HQ humanitarian programme
staff involved in implementing projects?
10 Are the information products provided by the Start Funds service providers
(ACAPS and Development Initiatives) effective in their express purposes?
11 What can improve coordination and maximise collaborative advantage

within and outside of the network?
12 Do the procedures we have in place assure donors of risk management
(especially fiduciary) and promote the ambition for a collaborative
partnership model with donors?
Theme 2 - Start fund engagement with external funding and
fundraising
13 Is the Start Fund succeeding at filling a gap to give space to leverage
other funding for emergency response in the intervention context?
How can we measure leveraging and how can we improve it?
14 Is the Start Fund promoting complementarity with other emergency
response funds and mechanisms?
15 Is our fundraising strategy effective? How can we improve our efforts to
get donors on-board so that it becomes a truly multi-donor pooled fund?
Theme 3 - member engagement with the Start fund
16 Did the secondee programme have lasting added-value?
17 Are member agencies families and local partners aware of the Start
Fund and ready to engage with it? Do they have the capacity for this?
18 What are the models used by different member HQs for engaging with
the Start Fund and how can we improve engagement?
19 Are the trainings and communications package improving member
awareness across HQs, their member families and local partners?
Theme 4 - Start fund at field level
20 Is the Start Fund developing, implementing and embedding effective
strategies to devolve more power to civil society partners and/or crisis
affected communities?
21 Does the information available to the Start Fund enable needs-based
decision-making and implementation of activities?
Theme 5 - recommendations for scale-up
22 Do we as a Network have the capacity to support 40+ crisis responses
a year? If not, what do we need to get there, and at what point do we
need more capacity?
23 What is the capacity (budget and human resources) needed in the Start
Team and in member agencies to operate at scale?
SubTexT QueSTioNS
24 How fast are we compared to other donors and how do we measure up
in the humanitarian financing architecture?
25 Is the Learning Framework an effective process for ensuring on-going
learning? Has it been implemented in a robust manner by the M&E Team?
26 How do we assess the added value for members for engaging with the
Fund, beyond access to new financial resources for humanitarian response?
27 Do our projects coordinate in-country? With whom and how well?
28 What are the various models used at the project level for partnering with
disaster-affected peoples and their communities in the delivery of aid?
Are we embedding downward accountability in our work?
3.4 | best Practices

The evaluation is expected to provide 3 key examples of Best Practice from the programme. These examples
should relate to technical areas of intervention, either in terms of processes or systems. These examples
of Best Practices should be presented in an annex to the report.
3.5 | evaluation outPuts

3.5.1
| incePtion rePort
The topline questions in the Scope (Section 4.3) will serve to focus the evaluative work on those areas.
The evaluator will be required to produce an inception report during the preparation stage in which they
will detail what questions they will pursue in order to comprehensively cover the questions and additional
points below. This will be shared with the evaluation managers (Start Fund M&E Team) who will provide
feedback to ensure all necessary areas are covered. The Inception report will include (but not be limited
to) an evaluation matrix, a report outline, draft questionnaires and detailed methodology.
3.5.2
| evaluation rePort
The report should be submitted in English. The report should not be longer than 30 pages including
annexes. Annexes to the report will be accepted in the working language of the country and programme
subject to the evaluation.
3.5.3
| learning WorKshoP
The evaluator should facilitate a learning workshop in collaboration with the Start Fund M&E Team.
to present the draft report and the findings of the evaluation.
to gather feedback on the findings and build consensus on recommendations.
l to develop action-oriented workshop statements on lessons learned and proposed
improvements for the future.
l to support finalisation of the final report.
l
l
aNNex 2
STudy parTicipaNTS
STarT Team
sean lowrie | Start Network Director
tanuja Pandit | Start Network Operations Director
caroline hotham | Start Fund Manager
tegan rogers | Communication and
Administrative Officer
emily montier | Crisis Anticipation Advisor
James eyre | Finance Business Partner
amanda Weisbaum | Start Fund secondee,
War Child
audrey lafitte | Start Fund secondee,
Christian Aid
amy guyen, | support to Laura Evans,
Start Fund secondee, Relief International
margeaux fisher | Start Fund secondee, ACF
matt Kletzing | Start Fund M&E Manager, ACF
STarT NeTwork board

nick guttman | Christian Aid
nigel timmins | Oxfam
saul guerrero | ACF
STarT fuNd
allocaTioN commiTTee
tess Williams | Care International
oenone chadburn | Tearfund
mike noyes | ActionAid
neil casey | CAFOD
sanj srikanthan | IRC
shelley collins | IRC
ben garbutt | Oxfam
dan collison | War Child
STarT fuNd
projecT SelecTioN commiTTee
hitendra solanki | ACF
sonya ruparel | ActionAid
michael mosselmans | Christian Aid
imran madden | Islamic Relief
mark bulpitt | World vision
learNiNg & evaluaTioN

commiTTee
Jamie hall | Relief International
louisa Woollen | Handicap International
doNor forum
lisa doherty | Deputy Director, Humanitarian
Unit, Irish Aid
matthew benson | Humanitarian Advisor,

Department for International Development
dylan Winder | Head of Humanitarian Response,
Department of International Development
shoko arakaki | Chief, Funding Coordination
Section, OCHA
michael Jensen | Head, Performance,
Monitoring and Policy Section, CERF
Secretariat, OCHA
STarT NeTwork memberS

- baNgladeSh
Karen moore | Assistant Country Director,
Care Bangladesh
mahbub rahman | Emergency Preparedness
Programme manager | Care Bangladesh
shafiqur rahman | Humanitarian Assistance
Coordinator, SHOUHARDO, Care Bangladesh
fatima Jahan seema | Impact Evaluation
Coordinator, Care Bangladesh
dulon gomes | Emergency Officer, Christian Aid
shakeb nabi | Country Manager, Christian Aid
yeeshu shukia | Regional Resilience Officer,
South Asia, Christian Aid
damien Joud | Head of Food security
and livelihoods and disaster risk reduction, ACF
suchitra behera | Country Director, Tearfund
md.obaidur rahman | Country Director,
Muslim Aid
shofiul alam | Programme Manager for Food
Security and Emergency Response, Muslim Aid
md.nazim uddin | Humanitarian Finance
Officer, Oxfam
ranjit topno | Interim Funding Coordinator,
Oxfam
murshida akhter | Humanitarian Programme
Manager, Oxfam
Jannat noor | Emergency food security and
vulnerable livelihoods coordinator, Oxfam
Kabita bose | Associate Country Director, Oxfam
richard sloman | Bangladesh Programme
Officer, CAFOD
robert cruikshank | Regional Emergency
Coordinator AMELAC, CAFOD
mostak hussain | Humanitarian Director,
Save the Children International
sajid rajhan | ActionAid, Deputy Director,
Programme Policy and Campaigns
shabel firuz | Country Director, Islamic Relief
munshi mahabubur rahman | Coordinator Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning,

Islamic Relief
golam motasim billah | Head of Humanitarian
Programmes, Islamic Relief

- keNya/Somalia
Pierre bry | Africa Director/Somalia Country
Director, Relief International
James collins | Africa Regional Programme
Development Manager, Relief International
yusuf ahmed | Regional Director
for East Africa, Islamic Relief
hannah mclafferty | Programme Officer,
Somalia Programme, World vision
Pasteur ruberintwari | Deputy Director
Programmes, IRC
dustin caniglia | Grants Manager, IRC
emily gikaara | Emergency Coordinator,
Save the Children International
md. muumin | Country Director, Somalia,
Muslim Aid

- uk
claire Parfondry | Concern Worldwide
chloe dessemond | Plan International UK
STarT fuNd Service

providerS
gabriel trujillo | ACAPS (by email)
sophia swithern | Global Humanitarian Assistance
Programme leader, Development Initiatives
chloe stirk | Programme Advisor, Development
Initiatives
exTerNal iNformaNTS
Kate hart | Humanitarian Advisor,
Department for International Development
sebastien fouquet | Humanitarian Advisor,
Department for International Development,
Somalia
dan ayliffe | Humanitarian Advisor, Department
for International Development, Bangladesh
alison girdwood | Senior Humanitarian
Evaluation Advisor
melissa Pitotti | Senior Policy Officer,
International Council of voluntary Agencies
aNNex 3
re-orgaNiSed evaluaTioN framework
relevaNce
teams and HQ humanitarian programme staff

involved in implementing projects? Are the
monitoring and control systems appropriate?
Are the procedures in place assure donors
of risk management (especially fiduciary)
and promote the ambition for a collaborative
partnership model with donors?
is the start fund being activated for the

most appropriate responses for a 45 day
funding mechanism (small to medium scale,
under-the-radar emergencies)?
relevaNce aNd complemeNTariTy:
Is there a gap in the humanitarian financing
landscape? What is it? Do the information
products provided by the Start Funds
service providers (ACAPS and Development
Initiatives) assist in identifying the gap
and driving decision-making? Has the
Start Fund been successful in filling this
gap? Is the Start Fund complementary to
the other emergency response funds and
mechanisms?
can engagement be improved? Are member

agencies families and local partners aware
of the Start Fund and ready to engage with
it? Do they have the capacity for this? Are
the trainings and communications package
improving member awareness across HQs,
their member families and local partners?
leveragiNg fuNdS:
How effective have the Network members
been at using the Start fund to leverage
funding from elsewhere? How is leveraging
measured and how can this be improved?
learNiNg:
Are the Funds feedback loops effective
for internally evaluating every crisis
response? Have members used their 1%
of the allocation available for this? What
is the added value of the L&E component
(what has been learned)? Is the Learning
Framework an effective process for ensuring
on-going learning? Have internal learning
mechanisms contributed to the evidence
base and have improved decision-making?
Has it been implemented in a robust manner
by the M&E Team?
effecTiveNeSS
how effective have the management
and operations of the start fund been in
promoting early action in responding to
humanitarian crises in line with delivering
its declaration of intent?
l
TimeliNeSS:
How timely are key fund processes? Is it
meeting its speed KPIs (72 hours, 7 days,
45 days)? Which is the most applicable
KPI and against which context is it most
appropriate (e.g. type of emergency, rapid vs.
spike in slow onset crisis, etc.)? How fast is
the Start Fund compared to other donors and
how does measure up in the humanitarian
financing architecture?
is the start fund being disseminated

throughout the membership and has it been
successful in shifting capacity and leadership
to the local level of the humanitarian system
as outlined in the declaration of intent?
reporTiNg aNd riSk maNagemeNT:

Are the forms (online surveys, applications,
reporting forms, etc.) collecting the
information needed at a high enough quality
with minimal burden, as indicated by field
moTivaTioN for memberShip:

What is the prime motivation for members
engaging with the Start Fund? Do members
consider that there is added value, beyond
access to new financial resources for
humanitarian response?
deceNTraliSaTioN & diverSiTy:

Is the Start Fund developing, implementing
and embedding effective strategies to
devolve more power to civil society partners
and/or crisis affected communities? What
are the various models used at the project
level for partnering with disaster-affected
peoples and their communities in the
delivery of aid? Are members embedding
downward accountability in their work?
to what extent has the design and build

phase (april september) provided evidence
to support the rationale for the start funds
type of 45-day funding mechanism? how
effective is the start funds strategy for
growth and what capacity implications will
this have for the start team and network?
SuSTaiNabiliTy - fuNdraiSiNg:
Has the fundraising strategy been effective?
How can efforts to get donors on-board be
strengthened so that it becomes a truly
multi-donor pooled fund?
SuSTaiNabiliTy - growTh:
Does the experience of the design and
build phase justify continued growth? Does
the Network have the capacity to support
40+ crisis responses a year? If not, what is
required for it to achieve this, and at what
point will it require additional capacity?
What is the capacity (budget and human
resources) needed in the Start Team and in
member agencies to operate at scale?
Shared viSioN:
How do members interpret the Declaration
of intent esp. concerning issues of diversity,
decentralisation and collaboration? To what
extent has the Start Fund been successful in
modelling these? To what extent is the Fund
contributing to systemic transformation?
What needs to be done to strengthen this?
l
l
SuSTaiNabiliTy
collaboraTioN, deceNTraliSaTioN
aNd diverSiTy
NeedS-baSed deciSioN-makiNg:
Are the information products provided by the
Start Funds service providers (ACAPS and
Development Initiatives) effective in their
express purposes (i.e. clarifying the context
of the emergency in order to permit Start
Fund activation and allocation decisions to
be made)? Does the information available to
the Start Fund enable needs-based decisionmaking and implementation of activities?
How rigorous is the decision-making of
the subcommittees (allocation, project
selection and learning & evaluation)? To what
extent are the Start Fund decision-making
processes transparent to all stakeholders?
collaboraTioN:
What can improve coordination in the
implementation of the Start Fund and
maximise collaborative advantage within and
outside of the network? Do Start Funded
project coordinate in-country? With whom
and how well?
realiSiNg The viSioN:

Did the secondee programme assist in the
promotion of the Start Fund within agencies
and has it had lasting added-value? What are
the models used by different member HQs
for engaging with the Start Fund and how
SuSTaiNabiliTy - TraNSacTioN coSTS:

To what extent do the benefits of
collaboration and financing offset the internal
agency transaction costs associated with
administering the fund?
Evaluation of the Start Fund design & build phase
aNNex 4
Annex 4: Start Fund timeframe diagram and process
STarT fuNd Timeframe diagram aNd proceSS
48
aNNex 5
propoSed modificaTioNS To The projecT SelecTioN criTeria
1 | existing ProJect evaluation criteria44
CRITERIA
ExPLANATION
KEy QUESTIONS
relevance/
aPProPriateness
relevance questions how much the project is

in-line with local needs and priorities, including
donor policy. appropriateness is the tailoring
of humanitarian activities to local needs,
increased ownership, accountability and costeffectiveness accordingly.
NoTe: these are complimentary criteria that can

be used at different levels (macro to micro) to
evaluate the wider goal and specific approaches
of response to local context and needs
a measure of the outputs (qualitative and
quantitative) achieved as a result of inputs.
efficiency
NoTe: generally requires comparison of

alternative approaches to determine if the
most efficient has been proposed, taking the
urgency of the needs into account
effectiveness
a measure of the extent to which an aid

activity can be expected to attain its purpose
NoTe: implicit within this criteria is timeliness
is the situational analysis appropriate?

is the intervention relevant to the needs and local context
of the population and differing population groups?
l are the methods of intervention appropriate to the target
population(s)?
l does the proposed intervention add value to the overall
response?
l is there appropriate institutional capacity to conduct a
relevant and appropriate response?
l is the project in line with the cbha strategy/aims?
l
is the proposed use of the financial, human, technical and

material resources likely to be the most efficient in relation
to the proposed output(s) and stated risks/constraints?
l are resources being sourced in a responsible manner
(including adherence to dfid procurement regulations)?
l have potential political constraints to efficient programming
been considered?
l
how effective is the project likely to be in terms of meeting

its stated purpose?
l Will this project provide appropriate assistance in a timely
manner to those affected by the humanitarian emergency?
l is the scale of the project reasonable for the time-period
and stated capacity/experience of the agency?
l is adequate coordination with ngos, un, host government
and other actors planned for during the proposed project?
l
2 | Problem statement
Before decentralisation, the UK-based PSC met on several occasions and in so doing built up trust
between the members and also became familiar with the criteria that are used to score projects which is
an important part of the selection process.
A review of the evaluation criteria show that while they are appropriate to humanitarian evaluation, they
do not lend themselves to the process of scoring project proposals and in both of the case study visits,
members staff raised concern about the challenge of scoring (e.g. not all staff were familiar with evaluative
terms and some of the questions require analyses that cannot be undertaken given the information
contained in the application form or the time the PSC have to make their decision). Given the importance of
different PSC members scoring projects in a consistent way, and bearing in mind that decentralised PSCs
bring together a range of humanitarian practitioners who have very different skillsets and experiences,
there is scope for rephrasing the questions under each of the criteria so they are less open-ended and
lend themselves more easily to applying a score. While it is accepted that project selection cannot and
should not be a science, given that scoring is an important part of the project selection process, then
it is in the interests of transparency and equality that the system provides the greatest assurance of
consistent usage across all of the members
44
The criteria and accompanying guidance is taken from ALNAP (2006) Evaluation humanitarian action using the OECD-DAC criteria: An ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies, ODI, March 2006.
3 | suggestions for a modified ProJect selection criteria
CRITERIA
ExPLANATION
SCORE 1 - 5
1
relevance
relevance questions
hoW much the ProJect
is in-line With local
needs and Priorities,
including Policy.
(1 is low & 5 is high)
the project saves lives, livelihoods and/or is filling gaps

(project application, section 1.1 and 1.4)
the intervention is based on an assessment and identifies
and meets priority needs of the affected communities
(project application, section 1.2)
beneficiary data is disaggregated by gender and age
the intervention is technically sound and is based on relevant
sPhere standards and/or locally agreed cluster guidelines
average score for relevance:
efficiency
a measure of the
outPuts (qualitative
and quantitative)
achieved as a result
of inPuts.
the proposal achieves the maximum impact with the resources

requested (project application, section 1.3)
the average cost of key items and activities is reasonable and in
line with other similar projects (project application, section 1.3)
Procurement of relief items will meet start fund guidelines
(currently consistent with DFIDs requirements)
(procurement question at the bottom of section 1.2)
average score for efficiency:
effectiveness
a measure of the
extent to Which an
aid activity can be
exPected to attain its
PurPose
the project approach is sound and is likely to be successful

(see project application section 2.4 and 2.5)
the project (including resource mobilisation) will be ready to
commence within 7-days (see project application, section 2.2)
the project is likely to be completed and meet its intended
purpose in 45-days (see project application, section 2.2)
the organisation/partner actively attends cluster and
coordination meeting (project application, section 2.3)
average for effectiveness:
additional
criteria
the member and/or its partner has the capacity to

implement the project
the member and/or partner already has a presence
in the affected area
the project is in line with any guidance provided by the allocation
committee
the project is consistent with the vision of the start network
average for additional criteria:
The modified criteria for project selection seeks to build on the current Start Fund format with a view to
simplifying the questions and offering a format which is simple to understand and which can be filled in
in situ to avoid any potential problems related to incorrect scoring (which has occurred in several of the
decentralised PSCs). It includes greater interrogation of technical quality adherence to SPHERE standards
or locally agreed cluster guidelines.
aNNex 6
compariSoN of pooled fuNd riSk maNagemeNT,
QualiTy aSSuraNce aNd coNTrol
CRITERIA
FUND DESCRIPTION
needs
assessment
erf
assessment of needs undertaken by agencies and scrutinised by the respective cluster &
review board
raPid
decision to respond based on information from agencies and secondary data. is checked
with clusters & government bodies. if insufficient info, raPid team may conduct needs
assessment
chaf
assumption that applicants will have conducted own needs assessment
erf
the global guidelines state that the erf manager shall develop a risk analysis,
management and mitigating system & that this will be based on a risk management tool
developed & supported by ocha
raPid
once funding is approved, raPid follows up on potential areas of risk, inc. recruitment of
staff & procurement of relief items (raPid evaluation, p. 21). raPid has a number of risk
mitigation measures in place, inc. oversight of partners opening procurement tenders &
raPid staff independently monitor progress
chaf
Potential risks listed in proposal, the likelihood of the risks occurring, their effect on
achievement of expected results & risk management strategy. also a process of risk
analysis & reporting by member agencies the secretariat feeds issues from risk registers
in the proposal into the strategic risk register, if relevant (chaf guidelines, p. 5)
risK
management
technical
revieW
rePort
erf
the review of an erf application starts with the clusters examining a proposed project
to ensure congruity with cluster strategies and to determine whether the project in
fact is filling a gap. next, the erf mechanism requires that the review board, which
is composed of participants chosen by ocha (select un partners and ngos), further
examine the project, possibly in a more technical fashion
raPid
concerns raPid team reviews proposals. only 9.1% of applications accepted - most
rejected because needs assessment is not strong enough (particularly by local orgs)
& justification of intervention as appropriate is not sufficiently strong (raPid
evaluation, p. 17)
chaf
draft project summary, which is a very brief initial document, is reviewed by chaf
secretariat & dfat-d iha. only the secretariat reviews the draft project proposal
which is not an onerous task since chaf generally funds one member per crisis
(chaf guidelines, p. 6).
erf
recipient organisations are required to submit a narrative & financial report within
3 months of the end of a project. if project implementation exceeds 6 months, they must
submit a brief progress report on project activities and financial implementation midway
through (global guidelines, p. 23).
raPid
Partners are required to provide several reports in english - a baseline report, weekly
progress reports, a mid-term report & a final report (raPid evaluation, p. 24). evaluation
argues that raPid has opted for intensive reporting as well as intensive monitoring.
chaf
agencies receiving chaf funding are required to provide a report (according to the
format provided) to the secretariat within 2 months of the completion of project activities
(chaf guidelines, p. 13).
CRITERIA
FUND DESCRIPTION
monitor
erf
erf managers are responsible for monitoring projects through reports from recipients &
monitoring missions. they are expected to develop and formulate a detailed monitoring and
reporting (m&r) plan for the erf that outlines the strategy for monitoring performance and
results, based on a standard m&r framework (erf global guidelines, p. 8, 22).
raPid
level of monitoring depends on access to project sites & assessed programme risk as
reflected in capacity assessment. ofda also monitors projects, often in tandem with
concern staff. high level of monitoring with several projects visited three times but intensity
reduces for subsequent grants to same partner. monitoring data not aggregated to inform
high-level strategies or wider learning in sector (raPid evaluation, p. 23).
chaf
members are expected to apply their regular internal due diligence and monitoring practices
to chaf-funded projects. since chaf projects are small & geographically dispersed, they
are not expected to be evaluated by the secretariat. however, on a case-by-case basis,
the secretariat may engage with members and dfatd-iha to conduct focused monitoring,
evaluation and learning activities related to chaf-funded projects (chaf guidelines, pg. 17).
erf
ngo partners are required to have the financial report for each erf project audited & submit
this with narrative report in order to be paid the final 20% of funds. ocha hires external
auditors & oversees audit process (erf global guidelines, ps. 15, 16, 19). however, these
can cause long delays (erf global evaluation, volume 2). to be eligible for funding, ngos
must have their accounts audited at least once a year & published in an annual report (erf
global guidelines, p. 6)
raPid
organisations receiving over $300,000 in a financial year must be audited. in addition,

ofda commissions external audits of concerns management of raPid while concern has
commissioned internal & external audits of raPid (raPid evaluation, p. 25)
chaf
the activities of the chaf are audited as part of the annual humanitarian coalition financial
audit process (guidelines, p. 17)
erf
the current level of staffing in all erfs visited (5) - with the exception of ethiopia - is
inadequate to respond to even a limited flow of projects. levels of monitoring are insufficient
to ensure either quality control or learning. resources to better engage review boards
and advisory boards are lacking (global evaluation, pg. 11). most erfs have less than two
people managing them. usually, there is only 1 person to process applications & undertake
monitoring (global evaluation, pg. 21). Pakistan erf has 4 staff (raPid evaluation, pg. 25)
raPid
20 staff members (according to evaluation), partly because raPid has its own finance,
monitoring & technical staff, rather than drawing on concern staff (evaluation, pg. 13, 25)
chaf
4 staff members in humanitarian coalition secretariat, supported by interns & volunteers
audit
fund
management
caPacity

Evaluation of The Start Fund Design & Build Phase

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of The Start Fund Design & Build Phase

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of The Start Fund Design & Build Phase

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EvaLuaTIon oF thE Start fund

UK aid branding guidance

The STarT NeTwork haS aN

The memberS of The STarT

The use of peer review mechanisms, the decentralisation of

3 | coNcluSioN aNd recommeNdaTioNS

funding that is raised as a consequence

development to strengthen the relevance

11 | clarifyiNg The role of

1 | iNTroducTioN aNd purpoSe of The evaluaTioN

2 | backgrouNd To The STarT NeTwork aNd fuNd

5 | The coNTribuTioN of The fuNd To advaNciNg collaboraTioN,

6 | The fuTure SuSTaiNabiliTy of The fuNd

1 | iNTroducTioN aNd purpoSe of The evaluaTioN

1.2 | PurPose of the evaluation

The Start Fund is a multi-donor pooled funding mechanism

The main objective of the evaluation is to assess the performance

1.5 | structure of the rePort

The ToR is extremely broad and there was understandable

Section 1 of this report provides an overview of the purpose of

2 | backgrouNd To The STarT NeTwork aNd fuNd

STarT NeTwork declaraTioN of iNTeNT our collecTive viSioN1

2.1 | the start netWorK

2.2 | the start fund

The Start Network is a consortium of 19 NGOs working together to

What is the start fund?

The members of the Start Network promote a way of working that

The Fund provides small scale funding to the Networks 19 members

See Start Network Declaration of Intent, 14 February 2014, p1.

STarT fuNd baSeliNe aNd aNTicipaTed reach5

To date the Start Fund has secured funding of up to 30,511,177

hoW does the start fund WorK?6

iN iTS firST NiNe moNThS,

What has been achieved in the first nine months?

2.3 | an analysis of relevant funding

included in humanitarian action plan. ERFs predominantly fund

donor-managed raPid resPonse facilities

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development has

compariSoN of The characTeriSTicS of humaNiTariaN pooled fuNdS

Priority lifesaving needs

new rapid &

usually $60120m p.a.

3.1 | classifying crises - understanding the

aNalySiS of STarT fuNd alerTS aNd acTivaTioNS

alerT: Floods in Afghanistan, Internally Displaced Person (IDP) crisis in Pakistan

alerT: IDPs in Myanmar, Pakistan (Alert.Pak1) and Democratic Republic

alerT: IDPs in Yemen, cholera in Cameroon and Nigeria

alerT: Floods in Afghanistan, earthquake in China, floods in Bangladesh, floods in

*crises ongoing for > 24 months

A review of the AC meeting minutes for each of the activations

but may cumulatively account for significant suffering and loss

compariSoN of STarT fuNd alerTS wiTh global vulNerabiliTy iNdiceS

START FUND ALERT ACAPS START FUND BRIEFING

(NEED + IMPACT SCORE)

A review of the ratings given in the ACAPS briefing notes for

An area where the Start Fund is seeking to strengthen its analysis

Assuming that the reported data is correct, for the four

3.2 | an analysis of the comPlementarity

In response to flooding in Nepal, the fund was activated