Navigating a new era for international aid: Three strategies to help maximize impact

The international aid system—comprising multilateral organizations, government agencies, nonprofits, donors, and other actors—is at a turning point. Humanitarian needs are intensifying, especially where the impacts of climate change and conflict converge. Yet, even as demand for assistance grows, Official Development Assistance (ODA) from government agencies is in sharp decline, forcing the aid system to make difficult choices about who receives support. 

The impacts of unprecedented cuts to international aid 

Even before the drastic cuts to U.S. and European international aid budgets this year, humanitarian appeals were already underfunded globally. In 2024, despite 300 million people needing aid, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), UN appeals fell short by $25 billion. 

As the U.S. and European governments scale back their ODA budgets, efforts to address humanitarian needs and reduce poverty are being directly impacted. Some estimates warn that U.S. cuts to global health funding, for example, could cost 25 million lives over the next 15 years. Diminished investment in health care delivery, especially in fragile settings, risks undermining global health security and exposing populations to greater risk. And that’s just one piece of the broader fallout. 

So, how can nonprofits navigate this new challenging era for international aid? In a recent report, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) laid out a roadmap with strategies to help nonprofits maximize their impact with shrinking resources. These strategies could also be useful to public and private donors in informing their funding decisions. Here I’ll share three initial steps:  

1. Prioritize where needs are greatest for international aid 

Based on five structural risk factors to assess vulnerability to international aid cuts, the IRC identified 13 countries facing the most severe impacts, including Sudan, Burkina Faso, and Haiti. Despite being home to over a quarter of the world’s poorest people, these countries received less than half of the required funding for their UN Humanitarian Response Plans in 2024 and just under 10% of official aid the year before. Many also have the lowest immunization rates for infectious diseases. 

When aid organizations develop program proposals that define the geographical reach based on a transparent, data-driven approach, they can help ensure resources are allocated efficiently and effectively. This also enables programs to better align with public and private donors’ priorities. 

2. Invest in proven, cost-effective programs 

With fewer resources, it will be important for both nonprofits and institutional donors to prioritize interventions with the strongest evidence of impact and cost-effectiveness. Immunization programs are a clear example. Infectious disease outbreaks cost an estimated $60 billion annually. From 2000 to 2023, routine immunization helped prevent 60 million measles deaths; yet, that progress is now at risk. Climate shocks, declining immunization rates, and rising vaccine hesitancy have contributed to measles outbreaks in 57 countries, disproportionately impacting conflict-affected populations excluded from national health systems.  

But there is reason for optimism. Across the Horn of Africa, the REACH consortium, led by the IRC in partnership with international and local actors, has reported the administration of 14 million vaccine doses to children in conflict- and crisis-affected settings. In contexts like this, support from the private sector has proven essential. The Pfizer Foundation, for example, has helped this partnership expand immunization programs to some of the hardest-to-reach areas of Ethiopia’s Tigray Amhara regions, integrating immunization with nutrition so that children can get the care they need.  

To maximize the efficacy of limited funding, it’s important to prioritize programs that, like these immunization initiatives, are shown to be impactful and cost effective. 

3. Empower local responders in implementing international aid 

Local responders play a critical and effective role in providing humanitarian response and supporting recovery, offering tailored, cost-effective support rooted in community needs. To fully harness the contribution of local responders, the wider aid system should support a shift toward locally led solutions that produce long-term results for crisis-affected communities. 

International aid organizations have a key role to play in this process, as they can support the capacity of national and local partners through training, technical assistance, and even potentially sub-granting flexible funding to keep their programs running. The actions outlined in OCHA’s “humanitarian reset” can be a starting point for reforms to humanitarian coordination, funding, and accountability—by placing local actors at the center of decisions over where resources are directed and how programs are implemented.  

The landscape ahead for our sector will bring difficult decisions, but by adopting these three strategies, we can ensure maximum impact with the available resources. Nonprofits will need to work together with donors and funders to forge a path toward sustainable relief and long-term resilience.  

Photo credit: Taiwo Aina for IRC ©The International Rescue Committee