H1 Legacy Sixteen Country-Year Direct Funding Benchmark
Description
This dataset supports the Stage 1 funding-access and recipient-classification analysis for my study “Local NGO Autonomy, Direct Funding Access, and the Problem of Pseudo-Local Actors in Post-Crisis Response.” The workbook compiles and organizes OCHA Financial Tracking Service country-year funding records used to examine whether local/national NGOs appear as direct first-level recipients of international humanitarian and post-crisis response funding. The dataset directly supports H1, which tests whether strictly defined local/national NGOs are visible as direct first-level recipients of international funding. It also provides the classification and sampling foundation for H2–H4, which examine fund-management authority, downstream implementation roles, and movement toward recovery or displacement-response autonomy. However, H2–H4 require additional documentary tracing beyond FTS records, including pooled-fund allocation records, donor project documents, UN/INGO reports, local NGO annual reports, partnership records, project evaluations, and other implementation evidence. The workbook is intended to support transparency, replication, and auditability of the article’s first-stage descriptive analysis. It documents country-year funding totals, recipient categories, and classification decisions used to distinguish broad local/national actor labels from a stricter definition of genuine local/national NGOs. The strict-local classification is designed to avoid overstating localization by separating locally originated, independently governed local/national NGOs from international NGOs, country offices, branches, subsidiaries, pooled funds, government actors, Red Cross/Red Crescent actors, private contractors, and pseudo-local or internationally affiliated organizations. The dataset should therefore be read as a Stage 1 benchmark and classification base. It can show whether local/national NGOs appear in the first-level donor-facing funding chain, but it does not by itself prove fund-management authority, downstream implementation roles, or institutional autonomy. Those additional claims are developed through later project-level and organization-level tracing. The underlying source data are publicly available through the OCHA Financial Tracking Service. The workbook and accompanying classification notes are prepared for research documentation, replication, audit trail purposes, and future article development.
Files
Steps to reproduce
1. Access the publicly available OCHA Financial Tracking Service data through https://fts.unocha.org/. 2. Download the relevant country-year funding records for the selected crisis-response settings: Ukraine, Pakistan, the Philippines, Nepal, and Bangladesh. The dataset uses selected country-years associated with conflict, flood, typhoon, earthquake, and displacement-response contexts. 3. Review the downloaded FTS recipient and full-view records, including source organization, destination organization, destination organization type, destination organization level, funding amount, funding status, plan, emergency, sector, country, and year. 4. Clean and organize the records by country-year. Standardize recipient names where necessary, remove duplicate or non-relevant rows where documented, and retain the funding denominator used for each country-year calculation. 5. Classify recipient organizations by actor type. Categories include strict local/national NGO, broad FTS/local-labeled actor, pseudo-local actor, international NGO, international affiliate or country office, UN/multilateral agency, pooled fund, government/public actor, Red Cross/Red Crescent actor, private/contractor actor, and unknown/manual-review case. 6. Apply the strict-local classification rule. Count an organization as a strict local/national NGO only when local origin, independent governance, and donor-facing autonomy can be verified or reasonably established from available organizational evidence. Do not count country offices, branches, subsidiaries, governance-dependent affiliates, pooled funds, UN agencies, government actors, Red Cross/Red Crescent actors, private contractors, or unresolved manual-review cases as strict local/national NGOs. 7. Calculate country-year funding totals, broad local/national funding, strict local/national NGO funding, and the strict local/national NGO direct-funding share. 8. Aggregate the country-year results to produce the Stage 1 H1 direct-funding benchmark. 9. Use the classification results as the sampling and tracing base for H2–H4. H1 is tested directly through FTS first-level recipient records. H2–H4 require additional documentary tracing through pooled-fund allocation records, donor project documents, UN/INGO reports, local NGO annual reports, partnership records, evaluations, and other implementation evidence. 10. Compare the resulting strict-local direct-funding shares with the study’s hypotheses and with the broader localization policy benchmark associated with the Grand Bargain and related humanitarian localization commitments.