New Infrastructure for Humanitarian Giving

Jose Ravano:

We've worked in this sector a long time, we've seen how it's evolved, and so we know that it will adapt, right? But the problem is it needs to adapt quicker, right? The gap is just there, right? It's in your face right away. It'll get there, but I think what worries me is how long it'll take, because the needs are just increasing.

—————

MUSIC

—————

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

This is Giving With Impact. I'm Barbara Wheeler-Bride, an editor at Stanford Social Innovation Review. Welcome back to another conversation about what's at the heart of achieving more effective philanthropy. Our show is produced by SSIR with support from DAFgiving360®.

In this episode, we travel to Asia and talk with N Hlaing and Jose Ravano, the founders of The Aid Cloud, a platform for funding local humanitarian organizations that they've designed specifically for corporate and private funders. The traditional structure for humanitarian funding was built and sustained by bilateral donors like USAID and FCDO, the United Kingdom's government department managing international development.

After deep cuts to those bilateral donors, including the closure of USAID, local organizations were left scrambling to fill funding gaps. To give you some perspective, the closure of USAID cut 83% of U.S. foreign aid programs. Specifically, U.S. humanitarian spending fell from $14 billion to less than $4 billion between 2024 and 2025, accounting for almost the entire global decline in humanitarian funding. According to Refugees International, global humanitarian aid by according to Refugees International, global humanitarian aid fell by roughly 40% between 2022 and 2025, leading to what they called a historic and leading to what they called “a historic implosion of global humanitarian response.”

N and Jose, based on their experience in the humanitarian sector, saw an opportunity to create funding infrastructure that not only moves private dollars to local organizations, but also creates greater transparency and shares power with those organizations. Though their work with The Aid Cloud is focused on humanitarian efforts, the kind of connections their platform is making between private donors and frontline organizations could apply to other sectors like health, agriculture, and more. 

Here's my conversation with N and Jose.

—————

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

I want to talk to you both about your experience in this field and what brought you to founding The Aid Cloud. So N, we'll start with you. Can you tell us a bit about your experience working in the humanitarian sector?

N Hlaing:

Yes. I have worked in humanitarian leadership roles, particularly in Myanmar, for 16 years for INGOs. I used to work in development sector before, and then I moved to humanitarian sector when the big flood, you know, hit Myanmar. This was my first emergency experience. And that experience brought me, you know, to move entirely to humanitarian from development. And since then I involve in lots of emergency, conflict, disaster. I always took the role as a standby, you know, team manager, response coordinator, preparedness coordinator. So even there is no emergency, I was preparing to respond to emergency. 

What I learned is that even when I reached the ground within 48 hours, the actual response often didn't happen until a week. And my experience working in INGO, you know, depends on how big you are, or you know, depends on the funding portfolio. In some of the emergency, even INGO rarely have unrestricted funding to response immediately. 

So whenever I reach to the field, there are already a group or someone who has already distributed food or water, you know, to cover the immediate survival needs of the affected community. And who actually cover those immediate survival needs? It is civil society, or rescue and response network, or local organization already on the ground, because they are always close to, right? 

So I know that local organization on the ground, again, they don't have contingency fundings always. So usually the funder who have to step in for them’s a private business, individual well-wisher. So I always had thoughts like, “It would be good, you know, if we can have a mechanism that systematically connects private, corporate foundations, you know, well-wishers, whatever, those who don't really need a lot of approval process so that they can be front lines, you know, supporter until more established or more bigger fundings arrive.” 

Jose Ravano:

Yeah, I don’t know. I think primarily … I've been doing this for quite some time. And I think the things that impact me most, most of my experience is humanitarian, and most of it's in kind of conflict areas. And I think one of the drivers of that is: Often those of the most vulnerable are often the most hidden. And so working in those environments, just … it's complicated, it's challenging, right? It forces you to be creative, right? But you kinda see what you're doing, right? Even though no one else does. So I think that's kind of why I got into it. 

N Hlaing:

And how I get to form this, you know, initiative together with Jose is pretty much because of my experience working in the field. Since I know that this is the real challenge, and it would be good if we can systematically connect those private funders with the local organizations — if possible, even civil society or smaller response and rescue networks on the ground in a way that’s accountable and sustainable.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

Jose, you and N wrote in a recent issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review about The Aid Cloud, and you specifically framed your argument around the idea that there's an infrastructure failure in the humanitarian sector's attempts to support local organizations. Can you explain that idea a little bit more for listeners?

Jose Ravano:

Sure. When you talk about infrastructure or frameworks, what you're really talking about are a set of rules, right? For example, a project, how funding moves, what are the rules and the rails around that, right? And so when we talk about there's an infrastructure failure, the infrastructures exist in the bilateral frameworks. They continue to do so. And so that infrastructure exists. But when you look towards the private side, and the capital that's meant to replace some of the bilateral aid that's kind of decreased, we're also noticing that there is no real standard infrastructure for anyone, right? And so the idea is to say: Look, things have to move according to some rails, right? They have to move according to some rules and systems. And so creating an infrastructure is essentially setting up those rules so that money is transparent, people know how it moves, and so it actually facilitates more getting down there. And again, when we say there's a failure, it's more an absence, particularly in the private and corporate side.

N Hlaing:

Yeah, just to add a bit more reflecting to the Myanmar context. What I learned from my experience is that like, Jose said, we have bilateral funding donor, we have INGO, we have international actors who are responding in every emergency in Myanmar. But they always reach to the ground a little bit later, maybe within one week. But because they have their own process to decide whether or not they will respond to, or you know, which funding they will use, it takes some time. So normally who comes first is the private business, well-wishers, you know, who fill the gap, at least in the immediate, you know, to cover the immediate survival needs of the affected community. And I always see that there was no mechanism, there were no infrastructure that the private business or the corporate can buy in Myanmar as well. 

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

Jose, you alluded to this in your answer, but what is the funding environment for the humanitarian sector like right now?

Jose Ravano:

It's pretty dire, right? I mean I think, when you think about it, particularly in the humanitarian sector around this time, we're really faced with a lot of humanitarian issues that are conflict-related. And unfortunately in those areas where you're doing humanitarian around conflict, it tends to be primarily bilateral funding. And rightfully so: There’s security considerations, sanctions, complexity, right? And so in these kinds of environments it's really hard to be outside the bilateral framework. So it's a real dire situation in that sense, right? 

But I think what's harder, right, and I think what's really interesting about the landscape, is that you can see that people are concerned, right? The intent is there. The concern is there to figure out how to make it work. The challenge, however, is actually when you look at it from the INGO operation in the field, and particularly local organizations, right? Because that angle's a little bit different, right? But at the same time, you look out into the horizon and you just don't know. You don't know how it gets to you. 

First of all, the discovery problem, right? So which of the funders are willing to fund you in your country and the sector that you're working in. And there's no real way to understand that well. And so I think that's kind of also the thinking behind that is from the field side — what does it look like, right? And it's really hard, and we see the intent, and we see the concern, we see all the initiatives, and we applaud them. Part of the challenge is that we still have to figure out which one is appropriate and which one's a fit, right? And often that falls on to the local organizations on the ground, right? And that's where the harder connect seems to be.

N Hlaing:

I think the issue is the funding diversification. You know, my experience working with local organization in my context, the local organization mostly rely on bilateral funding. So when the massive bilateral cut happened, they are hit really hard. You know, a lot of them were forced to close or scale back significantly. Some organizations even had hard time for their long-term sustainability, things like that. So they are looking for the, you know, new additional source of funding to be, to make themselves sustainable. Of course there are many present humanitarian needs, and it's really difficult to prioritize. So bilateral funding cuts, no additional or alternative funding source … it's made it really hard to survive for the local organization.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

You set out to build some of that infrastructure that you were talking about, Jose, and create connections between funding and local organizations. Could you tell us a bit more about The Aid Cloud?

Jose Ravano:

Yeah, and so let me address kind of the top level of it. To really understand, it's just a framework, right? And so in many ways, I think one of the core principles or beliefs that we kind of are grounded in is that aid is really about relationships, right? And so local organizations have relationships with communities, relationships with their intermediaries, whether INGOs or big national NGOs. And that system operates off of various frameworks, and you just need to find a way to create a framework, a consolidated framework, for the private and corporate channel. And that's basically, you know, we do think that, again, relationships matter, so one of the things we wanted to was preserve that, right? And maybe expand it a little bit. And using those relationships and the methodology that they already know how to use, right? But just somehow consolidate it for the private sector.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

N, can you talk a little bit about how The Aid Cloud pairs local organizations with funding?

N Hlaing:

Yeah, so all the AC do is set up rules for accountability and the tool to execute them. Because we are addressing system-level rules, we can create terms that are favorable to local organization. And currently, you know, all those terms can set by the donor. Since we are setting the rules at the system level, we can build in terms that actually favor the local organization — things like a higher percentage of funding going directly to them, and restricted or discretionary funding, and decision-making power for local organizations. Those are hard coded into how programs are implemented. Sometimes, you know, although the terms usually come from the donor, the local organization have constraints to fulfill the terms, or they simply refuse the terms. So what we do is hard code the terms that favor local organization and we make those terms transparent so that local organization and the funder and even the connector in between can all see them. 

So at its core, we are trying to close the gap left behind as bilateral aid contracted, and using the relationship we have with local organization, and then, you know, making sure that we built the rules and we set the terms that favor local organization so that it will be, you know, favorable for local organization to operate and run their program using their local knowledge and adapting to the local context. 

Jose Ravano:

And again, our perspective is really about, you know, what does the local organization want, right? And right now I think the way the system works is that, you know, it's what kind of the donor wants, right? And so how we actually do the matching is, like, put a market out there. Right? And so let the donor find what they matched, right? Rather than say, “Hey, I already have a relationship with a local org. This is what I want to do.” But it might not be what the local org wants to do. Right? And so we think there's a market approach to that that kind of addresses fit in that way.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

Can you give me an example of some of the terms that you were mentioning, N, and how they shift some power to local organizations and provide more transparency to everyone?

N Hlaing:

We structure the cost, you know? For example, let's say we are raising 50,000 USD. And we have rules like how much percentage must go to the community and the local organization directly. And we also allow percentage of discretionary funding to the local organization for their organizational, you know, development and for their long-term sustainability, etc. So that is the rule that we already set, and we will treat the same, those terms, for every project. Whoever work with us, whoever funded the local organization through our platform, these rules are already set, and they have to follow, so that for the management side as well, it is easy for the funder — whoever, you know, engage to the local organization through our platform — because we have the same system, the same rules that they can manage easily and they can see, you know, everything transparently on the platform.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

Jose, who is The Aid Cloud for in terms of funders? Who do you have in mind? Who would utilize this platform?

Jose Ravano:

Well, good question, right? I think when we saw the funding landscape, I think the one thing we noticed is that it's really diverse, right? I mean, whether you have foundations, private philanthropy, individual, corporate giving, right? And that diversity is good. And I think there's different mechanisms and different initiatives coming out that recognize that diversity. And so the one thing that we kind of look at, and I know part of the localization debate is about intermediation, right? And often that debate says, you know, “You need to get rid of the intermediary layer.” And our argument is actually it's not a layer, it's not an actor. Those are functions. 

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

Jose's audio is a little rough here because we were speaking to him from a remote location. He told us the three main functions of the intermediary layer are vetting and discovery, traceability, and spending. The Aid Cloud is for private donors who want the same accountability standards you find in bilateral organizations.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

How do you vet organizations?

N Hlaing:

Vetting and due diligence is a big part of playing the intermediary role, and we follow the same process that bilateral funding already requires. We are not doing anything uniquely different from what INGOs and bilateral donors already do. So same as them: We run sanction check, we assess their capacity, including what policy they already have in place, and we also do reference check. The bilateral vetting frameworks, I would say they are already well-established, so we just follow those. Where we have an advantage is our free presence, which let us be more flexible on things like capacity, experience, or operational complexity based on the size and, you know, the experience of the local organization.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

I’m gonna shift gears just a little bit and talk about the effectiveness and the impact that organizations are making. So I wonder, how do you think about getting maximum impact out of philanthropic dollars?

Jose Ravano:

I think scale is, you know, where we start with, right? I think the whole principle behind what we've kind of come up with really is to say, “Hey look, there's an existing system out there, right? And it can scale immediately because it exists, right? You don't have to start anything new. The structures and the players are in place.” So I think on the impact side, I think we think any money they can get to local organizations where they're making the decision is a ready impact. They're more vested in it, frankly, than any funder, right? And so we think that's ready impact. So to maximize is to scale that. 

And again, the way we think about scale is using the structures that are in place, the relationships that are already there, right? Just create some kind of guide rails for how that relationship, at least financially, works. Similar again to USAID. You can operate USAID across the world, you can operate FCDO across the world because they're just rails, right? You kind of understand, or all the players understand, how the projects and money moves along those rails.

N Hlaing:

I think Aid Cloud, it's not only about finding funding. It's about, you know, empowering them by giving the tools that they need to execute, learning from the experience by running the project that they get funding from through this platform, you know, making their voices, empowering them. And we make them that they are the ones who are playing important roles. We want to show that we recognize that they are playing an important role and we give them space so that they come, you know, build up their own capacity. We are not limiting that they they just need to work with us. We just want to give the space for them to develop so that they can reach out to more, you know, bigger funding or bilateral or institutional funding, using the experience they had through this platform. So I would say the impact can be empowering local organization as well.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

I wonder if you could give me an example either of a connecting or even intermediary organization you work with, or how The Aid Cloud has been playing out in the real world and where you've been working.

Jose Ravano:

Yeah, I can answer that. So basically this is kinda a new model, right? And we had two options, right? We could go to potential connectors within the existing system, right? And say, “Hey, look, let's try this new infrastructure model.” We also know how it works. And so we realize that's a long process. So we decided to form our own connector or encourage our colleagues to kinda organize together and be a connector. They had the relationships with a local organization. It's not institutional, but they had the relationships, right? And so those are all set up. It was actually quite easy to get local organizations to work, because it does help them find funding and they still get the support that was there. But it's still difficult. So we're still in the fundraising phase, right? So we're still fundraising for them. And again, a lot of these partners are, and local organizations are the ones we work with. They already know the frameworks that we use. So it's just now using it for this new platform.

And then finally to add on, actually our process is actually in two phases, right? So I think what we wrote about in the article and what you asked us about how it's working with our first connector, the one that we actually started, right? The next phase is really about how do we scale it. And how do we scale it is by getting other connectors. People who are serving as intermediaries now and are willing to say, “Hey, we can adopt this framework as well.” And so we are looking for other potential connectors who are willing to join that pilot, because eventually I mean obviously it's really important for us to work on Myanmar. That's why we started it. But we also recognize that it's kind of a system that can scale. It can scale to development. I know we work primarily in humanitarian, and our context is harder, right? There's more sanctions, there's more complexity. But it is a system 'cause it's just the way INGOs and national NGOs who work with bilaterals work already. And so I think the next step is to find other like-minded who are willing to kinda test it out.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

How do you think about the impact what you're doing might have on the behaviors of large funders in terms of setting rules and terms and transparency? You've talked about how there's more power on the side of donors than on the side of organizations. So do you think this could have greater impact on organizations that might not be a part  – or funders that might not be a part – of The Aid Cloud, but just larger conversations that people are having around issues of power and localization? 

Jose Ravano:

Yeah I think it does have an impact whether they use it or not. I mean, I think these are functions. I think we focus a lot on who is doing it, right? And from our perspective, you know, even the big, large foundations, they have their own compliance departments and own verification teams. They probably wouldn't use The Aid Cloud. But I think there's a general argument there to say, “Hey, you know, there should be standards for what we're giving, right? And we should expect some kind of minimum.” And I think we can contribute to that discussion.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

And on the side of the organizations, they can also expect to have some power in the process vs. feeling like they are just … they are jumping at the whims of funders, let's say.

Jose Ravano:

Yeah, exactly. Right. And I think what we kind of saw was a little bit of opportunity when USAID collapsed is that usually the funders set the terms, right? And then because the funders weren't so organized, maybe you can set the terms outside them, right? And set the terms that are in favor of the local organizations.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

As two people with a background in humanitarian work, and you've had a lot of experience in the field, what worries you the most about this post-USAID or just post-government funding cuts to humanitarian aid and other development work? What are your biggest concerns right now?

N Hlaing:

For me, it is very important that private, corporate, you know, foundation, philanthropic organization who haven't, you know, connected to the local organization on the ground should be able to engage so that they can bring significant impact on the lifesaving needs of the country hardest hit by the disaster. What I worry most is since I work for Myanmar, I work for my country, where humanitarian needs are massive, resulting from escalating fighting, economic destruction, displacement and so on. And the issue is the organization in Myanmar, they do not really have diversifying funding sources. That's what I … what made me concerned and that make me worry most: how we can fill this gap.

Jose Ravano:

I mean the world's just getting crazier, right? On the humanitarian side, what we're seeing is more disasters – natural – and more conflict, right? And we see that at the same time where the money that actually used to fund it primarily is pretty much gone or reducing, right? And so that's a big worry, right? We're also, I mean, we've worked in this sector a long time. We've seen how it's evolved, right? And so we know that it will adapt, right? But the problem is it needs to adapt quicker, right? The gap is just there, right? It's in your face right away. And so, it'll get there, but I think what worries me is how long it'll take, right? Because the needs are just increasing.

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

Thanks, Jose. Thanks, N. I think you've raised a lot of important issues about funding local organizations, funding groups that are on the ground on the front lines, in places where there's a lot of conflict, where there's humanitarian disaster. And I think you touched even more broadly on any organization working locally on issues like health or even agriculture. I could see kind of the work you're doing, and some of the … sort of the stakes you're putting in the ground in terms of how important it is to empower and sustain local organizations applies across sectors. So thank you for talking with me today about The Aid Cloud.

Jose Ravano:

Thank you. Thank you for having us.

N Hlaing:

Thank you.

—————

MUSIC

—————

Barbara Wheeler-Bride:

Thanks to N and Jose for speaking with me. You can read more about The Aid Cloud in N and Jose's article for Stanford Social Innovation Review called “Beyond USAID.” We'll link to it in our show notes. If you enjoyed this conversation and you are curious about how other social change leaders are adapting and innovating in the wake of funding cuts to global development and the humanitarian aid sector, please subscribe to Stanford Social Innovation Review, where you can read more from innovators like N and Jose. Your subscription ensures we can continue to bring you stories like theirs. And a reminder to please subscribe, rate, and leave a review of Giving With Impact wherever you get your podcasts. This helps people discover the show. 

Next week, we'll talk with two donor advisors about the barriers that get in the way of people giving to charity or giving more. Plus, importantly, how to overcome them.

Giving With Impact is produced with support from Jordan Turgeon, Marcel Malekebu, and Bryan Maygers. 

A special thank you to DAFgiving360 for their financial support to make this podcast possible. DAFgiving360 is an independent 501c3 with a mission to increase charitable giving in the United States. DAFgiving360 provides the tax-smart and simple giving solution of a donor-advised fund or DAF account. Visit DAFgiving360.com to learn more.

Stanford Social Innovation Review is published by the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University. Visit SSIR.org to learn more and subscribe today.

Giving With Impact is hosted by Barbara Wheeler-Bride and produced with support from Jordan Turgeon, Marcel Malekebu, and Bryan Maygers. Artwork is by Peter Grant. Thank you to DAFgiving360^® for their financial support to make this podcast possible.

^{DAFgiving360 is an independent 501(c)(3) with a mission to increase charitable giving in the United States. DAFgiving360 provides the tax-smart and simple giving solution of a donor-advised fund (DAF) account. Visit dafgiving360.org to learn more.}