Have the 2026 ODA allocations highlighted a decline in keeping communities safe? 

The past year has been one of uncertainty. Since the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) announced a reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027/28, the steepest among G7 countries, the sector has been hoping for certainty about what this means for them and the communities they serve.

The 19^th March publication of the Official Development Assistance allocations for 2026/27 to 2028/29 has brought new challenges in navigating the future and keeping the communities we work with safe. With the FCDO announcing that funding for safeguarding will be reduced disproportionately, the risk that the quality and consistency of safeguarding will plummet increases.

Impact of investing in safeguarding

The UK has been seen as a prominent figure in its work to keep communities of development and humanitarian assistance programmes safe. Its work on the Safeguarding Summit of 2018, to this day, continues to be the largest shift the sector has seen towards better safeguarding practices. It highlighted the importance of organisations investing in safeguarding, which in turn has seen an increase in trust sector-wide. Victims and survivors now have more trust in actors to report, understanding that their cases are being appropriately investigated and managed. Year-on-year increases in reports received by Bond members show how this investment has created the trust to report. Sector-wide investment, driven by FCDO, has also positively impacted the communities we work in, with a particular benefit to victims and survivors of SEAH. In 2025, Bond members reported a 58% increase in initiatives that have practically supported survivors. 

Reduced resources limit communities’ safety

Bond member NGOs are disappointed with the news that funding for safeguarding will be disproportionately reduced. Organisations are already feeling the pinch with the closure of USAID, from which many members received vital funding.  Of the organisations that responded to Bond’s Safeguarding Survey in 2025, 40% reported that they now have less than one full-time safeguarding post, a decrease from the year prior. Many of those who remain in these roles are reporting that they are picking up additional work streams (security or safety, for example) in their organisations as a result of limited funding and the requirement to reduce their workforces. Reduced resourcing means less time to be innovative with approaches to keeping communities safe – work that had been undertaken by FCDO and their partners. Every year, Bond members tell us that they rely on initiatives such as the Resource and Support Hub and Bond to improve their knowledge of and confidence in safeguarding. The lack of clarity in the allocation equality impact assessment, which states “Most individual programme decisions are yet to be taken”, means that the anxiety of what future support there might be continues into another year. 

What will happen to FCDO initiatives?

There continues to be a lack of clarity around the FCDO’s communications regarding the spend being ‘disproportionally reduced’. Bond and its members are calling for much-needed clarity. Will FCDO no longer approve budget lines for safeguarding in proposals? Or are they scaling back their investment in the common good?  Both are particularly concerning for member NGOs, whether they receive funding from FCDO or don’t.

FCDO has been creating paths for the sector, supporting actors to ensure that keeping communities safe is the golden thread to the work that they do. The creation of CAPSEAH was beginning to align the sector, removing the silos in our efforts to prevent SEAH – spanning IFIs, INGOs/CSOs, peacekeeping organisations and governments. CAPSEAH had been gaining momentum to be the ‘one framework’ in keeping our communities safe. Whilst we understand that they have committed to continue to support partners to adopt and implement, should capacity reduce, there is a lack of certainty that this would be driven forward at the same pace as to date. 
 
More recently, FCDO have committed to the importance of passporting with their partnership with HQAI. This action could lead to other donors following suit, which will significantly reduce the burden on a variety of professionals undertaking due diligence for funding. The sector needs more examples of passporting to ensure consistency. With a safer recruitment passport being on the cards for many years now, it is challenging to see how other such initiatives could be created.  

Sadly, the government’s lack of funding for this critical area suggests they do not see safeguarding as a priority. Culture comes from the top; if FCDO does not see this as a priority, how will this permeate through the sector? Reducing safeguarding as a sector priority will increase the risk of another crisis similar to those seen in 2018 – a very real risk that FCDO should be alive to.