Beyond Emergency Aid

Executive summary

Humanitarian crises in South Sudan create interconnected challenges involving emergency assistance, household economic security, access to essential services, displacement and livelihood opportunities. Humanitarian actors must meet urgent needs while exploring ways to strengthen resilience and reduce avoidable dependence on short-term assistance.

This proposed study will examine how humanitarian financing arrangements and programme-delivery models can better support household resilience and economic recovery. It will consider multipurpose cash assistance, livelihood recovery, local market support, community-based protection and links between humanitarian and development programming.

The intended outputs are an evidence-informed framework, practical programme-design recommendations and monitoring indicators for humanitarian organisations, donors, public institutions and development partners. Conclusions will be limited to the evidence actually reviewed or collected.

Background and rationale

In recurrent and protracted emergencies, humanitarian programmes are expected to meet immediate needs while also contributing to recovery. These goals can be difficult to reconcile when funding is short-term, household needs overlap, markets are disrupted and local services have limited capacity. A transparent evidence synthesis can help programme teams identify which approaches are suitable in different contexts, how interventions may complement one another and which outcomes should be monitored.

Problem statement

Evidence relevant to humanitarian financing and household recovery may be spread across assessments, programme monitoring systems, partner reports and academic literature. Without a transparent synthesis and clear outcome framework, decisions can rely on inconsistent assumptions or count activities without adequately assessing changes in household well-being. This study will organise available evidence and identify practical options for programme design, coordination and monitoring.

Aim and objectives

Overall aim: Develop an evidence-informed framework for linking humanitarian financing and programme delivery with household resilience and economic recovery in South Sudan.

1. Review evidence on humanitarian financing, cash assistance, livelihood recovery and household resilience.
2. Identify operational and institutional barriers that may affect programme continuity and outcomes.
3. Assess suitable existing data on household and programme indicators, subject to access and quality.
4. Explore stakeholder perspectives if permissions, ethical review and safe access are secured.
5. Develop practical recommendations and monitoring indicators for humanitarian and development actors.

Research questions

1. What financing and programme-delivery approaches are described in available evidence as supporting household resilience?
2. What contextual factors influence whether cash assistance and livelihood support are feasible and appropriate?
3. What barriers affect programme continuity, coordination, accountability and outcome measurement?
4. Which indicators can help organisations monitor recovery without overstating causal impact?
5. How can programmes adapt to local markets, risks and community priorities?

Proposed methodology

1. Structured desk review

Review peer-reviewed literature, humanitarian assessments, programme evaluations, funding analyses, coordination products and public datasets. Record search terms, dates, inclusion criteria, source type, geographic coverage and limitations. Prioritise primary sources and identify grey literature clearly.

2. Quantitative analysis, if suitable data are available

Potential indicators include food-consumption measures, livelihood diversity, household expenditure, assistance coverage, market access and service access. Statistical methods should be selected only after reviewing the dataset, sampling design, missing data, measurement quality and assumptions. Descriptive associations must not be presented as causal effects.

3. Qualitative research, subject to approvals

If feasible, semi-structured interviews may be conducted with programme staff, local stakeholders and community representatives. Any primary research must first secure appropriate ethical review and permissions, informed consent, safeguarding procedures and secure data handling. A desk-based evidence synthesis remains a valid alternative if fieldwork is not feasible.

4. Analysis and triangulation

Organise evidence by intervention, context, outcome, implementation conditions and strength of evidence. Compare source types, document contradictions and distinguish direct evidence from interpretation. Maintain an evidence table recording the source, date, population, method, finding and limitations.

Proposed analytical framework

This is a proposed organising framework, not a validated causal model. Relationships between financing, delivery and outcomes require testing or cautious interpretation against appropriate evidence.

Illustrative monitoring indicators

Ethics, safeguarding and data protection

• Obtain institutional and relevant national or local approvals before primary data collection.
• Use voluntary informed consent in a language participants understand; never promise assistance in exchange for participation.
• Minimise collection of sensitive information and remove direct identifiers wherever possible.
• Apply safe referral and safeguarding procedures when protection risks or distress arise.
• Store data securely, restrict access and follow applicable data-protection requirements.
• Avoid publishing details that could expose participants or communities to harm.

Limitations and risks

• Public data may be incomplete, outdated, non-comparable or unavailable at the desired geographic level.
• Security and access constraints may limit fieldwork and representation.
• Self-reported data may be affected by recall, social desirability or expectations of assistance.
• A desk review can identify patterns and plausible mechanisms but cannot independently establish programme impact.
• Findings from selected locations should not be generalised to all of South Sudan without a defensible design.

Indicative work plan

Intended outputs

• Full evidence-informed report with transparent methods, citations, limitations and recommendations.
• Executive policy brief for senior decision-makers.
• Programme-design and monitoring toolkit with indicator definitions.
• Presentation deck for donor, NGO or coordination briefings.
• Optional tailored research or programme-design consultancy.

Source-development plan

Candidate source providers include UN OCHA, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), WFP, FAO, IOM, UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank, peer-reviewed journals and relevant South Sudan government sources. This list is a starting point, not a claim that specific documents have already been reviewed. The full research report must record each document's exact title, publication date, URL, methods and relevant findings.

Conclusion

This proposal provides a foundation for a potentially useful humanitarian research product. Its value will depend on a clearly defined scope, verifiable evidence, transparent methods, ethical practice and recommendations that help decision-makers. The next stage is to conduct the documented review and analysis, then revise the manuscript so all conclusions reflect the evidence actually obtained.