How a standard-shape CBPF with a 2x envelope produces a ceiling-bound grant economy

Full technical report: link This is an explanatory, opinionated companion piece. Views expressed are solely my own and do not reflect the positions of any organisation I have worked with.

On the usual concentration metrics, Herfindahl index, top-5 share, top-10 share, the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund (UHF) looks like a fairly ordinary Country-Based Pooled Fund. That is exactly why it is misunderstood. The UHF is not more concentrated than its peers; it is much larger. And when you run a normal-shape distribution through a $541M envelope over three years, the arithmetic produces something peers don't have: a cap-binding upper tier that receives the same maximum grant, round after round, year after year.

The result is effectively a two-tier fund hiding inside a one-number summary.

The inner circle: a cap-binding core

Twenty organisations appeared in every UHF allocation round between 2022 and 2024. Together they absorbed $299M of the $541M envelope, about 55%. That alone would be unremarkable for a mega-fund. What makes the UHF distinctive is what happens at the very top of this cohort: seven partners, ACTED, UNHCR, DRC, People in Need, ICF Caritas Ukraine, NRC and Proliska, average grants of $3.4M-$4.8M, essentially every ticket at or near the $5M standard cap. Six of the seven have also received at least one exceptional-cap grant above $6M (UNHCR's highest: $9.4M).

This is not a concentration story in the classical sense. It is a ceiling-binding story. For these partners, the binding constraint is no longer competition or absorptive capacity, it is the programmatic cap itself.

The flat top: a distribution peers don't have

The clearest fingerprint of the UHF's scale is the shape of its grant distribution at the top.

  • The median UHF grant is 2.6x the global CBPF median: $1.13M vs $440K.
  • The 90th percentile is exactly $5.00M, the standard cap.

That second number is unique among CBPFs. Peer funds, Afghanistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Somalia, oPt, show a long right tail that fades out smoothly as grants get larger. Ukraine shows a flat top: a dense cluster of grants pinned against the ceiling. The cap is doing visible work in the data.

The disguise: why the averages look normal

Given that flat top, one might expect the UHF's concentration metrics to scream. They don't. HHI, top-5 and top-10 shares all place Ukraine mid-pack among broad-partnership CBPFs. The paradox dissolves once you look past the Core-20.

The other 74 partners in the fund's 2022-2024 roster share the remaining $242M, 45% of the envelope, at much smaller, less repeated tickets. A churning outer ring of single- and two-grant partners operates at a fraction of the core's scale and drags the average down.

When you blend a tightly capped top tier with a long, flat bottom tier, the aggregate metrics land squarely in normal CBPF territory. Averages here actively obscure the operational reality.

The honest summary is: same shape as peers x roughly double the envelope = roughly double the mean partner take. Everything unusual about Ukraine grant sizes follows mechanically from that arithmetic.

The UN Exit and the localized vacuum

Where did this excess volume for NGOs come from? The data reveals a dramatic, structural policy shift: a 92% collapse in UN Agency funding over just two years. UN allocations plummeted from $66M in 2022 to a mere $5M in 2024.

This vacuum didn't shrink the fund; it redistributed the wealth. The displaced volume flowed directly into a broadened National NGO tier and select INGOs (like DRC and Caritas Ukraine). This created an unprecedented dynamic where, by 2024, the median grant awarded to a Ukrainian NNGO was actually larger than the median grant awarded to an INGO—an inversion of the global norm.

What sits inside each tier: a risk-weighted look at the recipients

Not every recipient carries the same due-diligence profile. Four clusters are worth naming explicitly.

(a) "Born of the war" partners, no pre-invasion track record. A handful of organisations were established in direct response to the 2022 escalation. When these entities receive multi-million-dollar grants, their institutional existence is effectively endogenous to UHF-scale funding. There is no pre-war baseline against which to assess organisational risk.

(b) Small global revenue base, UHF volume dwarfs the institution. Some international partners operated with pre-war global revenues of a few million dollars. A single UHF grant can equal or exceed their entire historical annual turnover, structurally transforming the organisation. The technical report tracks this as a dependency ratio: UHF disbursements divided by 2021 global revenue. Several partners exceed 1.0; one exceeds 4x.

(c) Established local NNGOs, the localisation success story. A cohort of Ukrainian NGOs with 5-10 years of pre-2022 operational history was absorbed into the UHF ecosystem as part of the deliberate post-invasion localisation shift. (Per UHF Annual Reports, direct allocations to national partners moved from ~30% pre-war toward ~60% post-invasion.) These are the partners the fund can legitimately point to when describing its localisation outcomes.

(d) The hyperscalers. Major UN agencies and Tier-1 INGOs with the global infrastructure to absorb rapid funding surges without altering their institutional risk profile. These sit predominantly inside the seven cap-binding partners.

The interesting policy question is not how to shrink the inner circle. It is how thin the empirical basis is for the partners in category (a) and (b) compared to (c) and (d), and whether that thinness is being priced into risk management.

The Ideal Candidate: The Full-Coverage Premium

If we map every UHF partner since 2019 across two simple axes—geographic footprint (oblasts) and sector coverage (clusters)—a clear "Ideal Candidate" profile emerges.

Organisations that operate across multiple oblasts and sectors, the Full-Coverage partners, capture the vast majority of the disbursed budget. Only 16% of all partners sit in this top quadrant, but they absorbed 46% of all UHF disbursements since 2019 (a median cumulative budget of $20.9M per partner). Conversely, narrow Specialists have a median budget of just $2.2M.

The path to scale is brutally clear: Geographic and sector coverage are the strongest predictors of funding volume.

Health: Fragmentation over Expertise

This absorption-first model creates blind spots, nowhere more visible than the Health sector. Despite massive allocations, the UHF’s health portfolio has seen profound temporal fragmentation. As institutional anchor agencies like the WHO exited the direct recipient pool, the funding flowed to a shifting mix of INGOs and NNGOs selected for their grant-absorption capacity, rather than technical medical expertise or pre-war field presence.

Even more glaring: the strategy systematically overlooked Local Health Facilities as partnership candidates—concentrating resources in predominantly Anglo-Saxon NGOs lacking prior health footprints in Ukraine, while ignoring the existing domestic healthcare infrastructure.

Interactive Grant Size Distribution

Explore the grant distribution data interactively:

Conclusion: a dual-track response, and the reality for applicants

The UHF is a unique operational model in the CBPF system: not one fund, but two operating under identical headline statistics. There is an inner tier of twenty partners recycling maximum ceiling grants round after round, shielded by their massive absorption capacity and broad coverage footprint. Then, a churning outer ring of 74 smaller-ticket partners that make the aggregate fund metrics look "normal."

For organisations deciding whether to invest in a UHF proposal, the implication is harsh: the defining constraint is not the quality of your pitch—it is the shape of the grant distribution itself.

If your institutional profile (pre-war track record, geographic coverage, sectoral breadth) doesn't mirror the Core-20's Full-Coverage model, the standard allocation is unlikely to elevate your rank, no matter how robust the proposal. You are competing against an arithmetic inevitability—a $5M ceiling on a $540M envelope that guarantees large repeated grants to those with proven scale.

For the fund itself, the hardest question is whether a flat-topped, cap-binding distribution that increasingly ignores local health facilities and over-relies on Reserve Allocations (51.9% globally vs the 40.2% CBPF average) is what its donors and the people it serves actually need. Is this deliberate strategic allocation, or simply what happens when you run the standard playbook at double the scale?

If you are looking to commission similar reports on your own data, I offer task-based consultancy. You can reach me through the contact page.