Cut to the Core: Accountability Under Threat
In a world where accountability is being severely tested, it can be easy to set aside commitments and practices that prioritise quality of services and accountability to the people we serve.
Yet under the strain of shrinking budgets and brutal shifts in donor priorities, we are seeing a quiet but dangerous dismantling of the systems that keep humanitarian aid safe, effective, and accountable.
Safeguarding and accountability cannot be optional; they must be non-negotiable.
The sector’s credibility—and more importantly, the safety of those it serves—depends on it. This is not just about budget lines, it is about lives, dignity, and trust.
A recent survey by CHS Alliance and Sphere revealed the sharp realities of recent funding cuts. The voices of humanitarian workers on the ground are clear and consistent: funding decisions are cutting into the core of what makes our work principled, accountable, and safe.
And this is not just about the future – the impact is already here.
The reality is already hitting
Across 55 organisations, respondents told us cuts are not only halting programme, but they are also undermining the very capacity needed to deliver accountable, dignified assistance.
Due to reduced staff and resources in key areas:
- 76 % said they no longer have the technical capacity to meet essential standards.
- 75% reported reductions in community-facing workers
- 75% flagged gaps in MEAL staff
- 49% reported loss of safeguarding capacity—leaving communities more exposed to exploitation and abuse.
Breeding mistrust
When asked whether the funding cuts have already affected, or are likely to affect the organisation’s ability to meet CHS commitments, 3 out of 4 (75%) participants said they strongly agreed or agreed that Commitment 1 – that people “can exercise their rights and participate in decisions”- would be affected.
80% of the respondents were equally concerned about cuts affecting Commitment 3 regarding communities’ resilience.
And 9 nine out of 10 respondents (89%) cited similar concerns regarding Commitment 2 – that people affected by crisis would be able to “access timely and effective support”
“There is reduction of staff and activities reaching out to partners.: “Activities halted abruptly, leading to mistrust from community members,” a survey participant said.
Another NGO representative commented: “The recent funding cuts have significantly impacted our organisation’s ability to deliver quality and accountable assistance to the communities we serve. This overall reduction in human resource capacity has hindered our outreach, slowed response times, and compromised the quality and accountability of our assistance efforts.”
When we lose these capacities, we lose more than functionality—we lose the trust of the people we’re meant to support.
Particularly alarming is what is happening to safeguarding. As humanitarian actors, our first obligation is to do no harm. But safeguarding teams—already stretched—are being dismantled.
“Safeguarding is no longer essential”
Three quarters (75%) of respondents expressed concern that cuts would impede their ability to meet commitment 5 – that communities could “safely report concerns and complaints.”
“Due to the abrupt cuts of US funding, we had to let go of safeguarding focal points… these roles are no longer considered essential,” a respondent commented.
When did safeguarding become negotiable?
Those that are hit, are the survivors themselves:
“Our organisations had to stop projects that focus on GBV response and Prevention. During the implementation, the project stopped, and because of that, the project participants suffered a lot, especially GBV and SGBV survivors”, another respondent commented.
What does this tell us?
This survey, while relatively small, echoes what CHS Alliance members are telling us: the funding cuts pose an existential threat to our collective values.
Humanitarian aid that is not accountable, that does not protect and does not put the dignity of people at the core, removes the human from humanitarian. We cannot get to a point where the idea that cutting corners in a crisis is accepted and normalised.
These are systemic failures—ones that donors, agency leaders, and coordination bodies must confront head-on.
Where do we go from here?
The message was unanimous: this is not about weakening our values.
“Lowering the standards is not an option. [We need] enhanced collaboration and coordination, support to all humanitarian staff especially local partners on standards. [We also must see] donor “education” about what it takes to provide humanitarian assistance that is dignifying.”
We must see stronger advocacy of the standards and CHS verification, both to donors but also within the organisations themselves. We heard a need for lower cost and more accessible capacity strengthening support, which both organisations are committed to finding solutions to.
But we cannot do it alone. As we look to the future of aid and the “humanitarian reset”, one thing is clear: there must be a sector-wide refusal to compromise on the values that define us.
If we allow safeguarding, quality, and accountability to be deprioritised, we are complicit in weakening the very thing that makes humanitarian action legitimate.
The cuts are already happening, but the collapse is not inevitable.
We must never accept that safe, dignified, accountable aid is too expensive. Because when accountability goes, harm follows. And that is a price we cannot afford.