Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF)

Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF)

If you run humanitarian programmes and have an idea that works in the field but is hard to prove, scale, or fund, the Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) may be the right match. This page is intentionally practical: what the fund is, where it fits, what it does, and how to decide whether it is worth your time.

The first step is to check the official page state. Elrha’s current HIF/programme page on www.elrha.org/programme/hif/ redirects to https://www.elrha.org/innovation, so that is now the preferred canonical link for this opportunity. The official funding portal also shows that there are no open funding calls right now.

At a glance

What HIF is (in plain terms)

The HIF is Elrha’s humanitarian innovation programme. In plain words, it helps people in humanitarian sectors move an idea into something that can be used in real crises.

Elrha frames HIF as support across innovation stages. The core idea is not just funding a single pilot; it is helping projects get from concept to tested solution and eventually to scale where possible. The innovation guidance page and focus pages describe HIF as supporting:

• identification of innovative ideas,
• testing and evidence generation,
• and support for adoption or scaling.

So, HIF is closest to a portfolio-style innovation fund for humanitarian actors, where learning and evidence are expected outcomes, not optional extras.

This matters because most funding calls fail not because the idea is weak, but because the project design is not clear about what “works” in a humanitarian reality.

What makes this opportunity different from research-only grants

HIF is often described beside Elrha’s other flagship programme, R2HC (Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises), and both are hosted in the same grants ecosystem. You should understand the difference:

• HIF focuses on humanitarian innovation: new approaches, methods, tools, service models, or technologies that improve assistance outcomes.
• Research funding pages (especially R2HC) focus more explicitly on health research design and the evidence pipeline.

In practice, this means HIF calls often ask:

• What problem are you solving in a real humanitarian context?
• How will you test the solution?
• How will you show evidence of effect and decide if it is safe, ethical, and scalable?

If your primary output is a new method, app, system, service, or practical mechanism for crisis response, HIF is usually the better path. If you are primarily running biomedical studies, clinical trial-like work, or broad public health evaluation, you should still check Elrha’s research opportunities carefully before assuming HIF is the right home.

When it is likely worth your time

Use this filter before you start writing:

1. Humanitarian relevance is obvious and defensible. Your problem statement should be rooted in a real humanitarian need (conflict, rapid disaster, displacement, or other crisis context), not a “nice to have” convenience problem.

2. You can define a testable improvement. If you can’t describe what success looks like in one measurable sentence, your project is probably not yet ready to apply.

3. You can show learning from field conditions. HIF-supported work is judged on practical learning, not just technical elegance. A good HIF application explains what you will learn, how you’ll measure it, and what happens if it fails.

4. Your implementation model can engage local actors. Closed calls and official guidance repeatedly highlight practical partnerships and contextual relevance. Applications that assume external actors implement everything from outside usually score poorly.

If you fail more than one of these checks, pause and strengthen concept paper + partner engagement first.

Who should apply (and who may struggle)

Good fit profiles

• NGOs and humanitarian implementing organisations with access to crisis-affected communities.
• Innovation-focused teams with technical and field-side capacity.
• Organisations already building or planning to pilot a solution with implementers on the ground.
• Social enterprises that can clearly show non-profit impact and a path to humanitarian value.

Potentially difficult fits

• Organisations without local operating knowledge or access.
• Projects requiring uncertain humanitarian settings or not clearly tied to crisis contexts.
• Teams that cannot commit to an evidence and learning process.
• Ideas that are mostly internal organisational improvements with only indirect community benefit.

Elrha’s eligibility wording is intentionally broad, but each call has its own criteria and should be your final filter.

What HIF appears to fund

From the official innovation programme pages and recent call materials, funding support can include:

• Innovation pilots and tested interventions.
• Scalable models with relevance to humanitarian response.
• Challenge-style support for tech interventions, inclusion, WASH, GBV, MHPSS and related operational gaps.
• Work linked to stronger uptake and adoption, not just concept development.

The call pages are not identical, and funding sizes vary by call. Publicly visible examples (closed calls) include:

• AI for Humanitarians: up to GBP 25,000 per grantee.
• GBV Tech Innovation Challenge: up to GBP 150,000 per project.

These amounts are historical examples and should not be treated as current guaranteed limits. Always read each active call’s headline amount, because Elrha changes this by call.

How the process works (officially)

HIF is not a form you fill once and send to a general queue. It is call-driven. Use this sequence:

1. Check for active calls. Go to Elrha’s funding opportunities page and confirm whether live calls exist.

2. Read the specific call page carefully. Every call has details, deadlines, and supporting documents.

3. Create or sign in to your Common Grant Application account. Closed call pages explicitly show that EOI is submitted through Common Grant Application.

4. Submit Expression of Interest (EOI) if requested. EOI documents are often the first filter. You should be brief but specific.

5. If shortlisted, submit full proposal. This usually requires a much fuller technical plan and budget.

6. Pass due diligence. If shortlisted, funders review governance, finance, and operational readiness.

7. Contract and grant setup if successful. This includes required reporting and governance requirements.

What the official timeline can look like

Because calls are only opened through official announcements, exact timings change. Elrha says many applications move through stages and are reviewed by expert assessors and a funding committee. A useful practical lens:

• Before deadlines: your prep period should be 4–8 weeks from call publication.
• EOI stage: concise but complete and clear.
• Full proposal stage: much longer, with methods, budget, monitoring logic, and partner commitments.
• Post-submission: if shortlisted, assessment and committee review can take time, followed by due diligence and negotiation.

For closed calls, Elrha has posted clear timestamps (for example, weekday deadlines in the afternoon, and application windows tied to specific dates), which gives you a sense of the expected submission discipline.

What to prepare before pressing submit

The biggest error people make is treating this like a grant form only. HIF expects practical strategy.

Core materials to prepare in advance

• Clear problem statement: one problem in one crisis setting, with affected population and context.
• Solution statement: what exactly is new, and why it is better than current practice.
• Evidence plan: what data will prove progress and where that data comes from.
• Monitoring plan: how you will track outcomes and what thresholds define success/failure.
• Implementation plan: realistic team roles, timeline, and local coordination.
• Budget logic: what is essential, what can be deferred, and what is contingent.
• Partnership map: lead, implementation partner(s), and any in-country accountability channels.
• Risk plan: ethics, safeguarding, security context, access constraints, and continuity alternatives.

Read the call handbook and FAQ first

For each active call, Elrha provides call documents (often in English plus other languages) and usually a handbook. Those documents answer:

• application template details,
• eligibility details for that specific opportunity,
• what “proof of fit” they expect,
• and timeline expectations.

Make the call documents your backbone. The general funding guidance is useful, but the call page always overrides it where details differ.

Applicant fit checklist before final draft

Use this before finalizing your draft:

• Could a reviewer explain your problem in one sentence that sounds different from standard existing practice?
• Can you explain who benefits, where, and why now?
• Can you show you understand the humanitarian setting and constraints?
• Is there a practical path from pilot results to adaptation, without changing the core problem every month?
• Do you have at least one implementer partner or a real plan to secure one?
• Are your success indicators verifiable in the field?
• Is your language precise and free of generic claims?
• Did you follow the exact submission deadlines, format, and file naming rules?

If you can’t answer yes to most points, do not submit yet.

What weak applications usually get wrong

Based on recurring patterns from call pages and public guidance, these are common mistakes:

• Submitting to a closed or inactive programme. The opportunities page can be empty or archived; always confirm active status.

• Copying broad statements from generic proposals. Vague text without context is a red flag because HIF is implementation-oriented.

• Ignoring humanitarian context details. A technology idea that looks good on paper but fails contextual feasibility will not progress.

• Relying on unverified partnerships. If you only mention partners without names, roles, or concrete support, your proposal weakens.

• Weak monitoring design. A good idea with no measurable proof path often fails faster than a smaller idea with a clean logic chain.

• Assuming one account can manage multiple simultaneous applications. Elrha’s own guidance on multi-application behaviour notes platform limits and requires careful handling.

• Skipping non-profit and legal readiness. Even though most opportunities are not-for-profit oriented in practice, the safer assumption is to verify legal and banking readiness early.

Selection reality and decision quality

When reviewing decisions for this style of grant, funding is typically not only a score-based outcome; it is also shaped by fit against the call’s portfolio balance and practical feasibility.

From Elrha guidance, applications are evaluated and ranked, and independent experts and a funding committee are commonly involved in final decisions for specific opportunities. If you are not selected, brief feedback is often provided at the EOI stage where possible.

So, don’t treat rejection as “no value.” In many cases, teams can use the same core material to submit future calls if they keep the learning evidence and partner strategy updated.

Timeline and readiness planning (practical example)

Because each call is different, this is a safe template:

If a call gives short timelines, do not overbuild: submit a clean, evidence-first application before building perfect narrative.

Financial and budget preparation without inventing certainty

You should avoid asking for money you cannot justify. A robust budget section usually has:

• Direct project costs tied to milestones.
• Essential personnel and local implementation support.
• Realistic logistics and field access costs.
• Explicit assumptions behind each line item.
• Contingency logic where possible, but no hidden wish-list expenses.

Because HIF calls are call-specific, you should treat published ranges in each call page as the governing ceiling. The two sample closed calls show varied scales, and other calls historically had different levels. So build your budget around the active call page, not around a generic prior number.

How to decide if this is right for your team (decision rubric)

Use this quick scoring method (0–2 per line):

• Context fit: is your target population clearly in a humanitarian setting?
• Innovation edge: is this an actual change, not just rebranding existing activity?
• Feasibility: can a team implement within crisis constraints?
• Evidence strategy: can impact or learning be measured without over-claiming?
• Partnership readiness: are implementation relationships realistic?
• Administrative readiness: can your team handle grant compliance and reporting?

Score 8+ out of 12 is usually a strong indicator to apply once a relevant call is open. Below that, refine first.

After submission: what you should track

If shortlisted, don’t disappear. You’ll need to support and respond quickly to requests.

Track these items:

• reviewer feedback points,
• any requested evidence gaps,
• partner confirmation documents,
• budget or implementation clarifications,
• and language around safeguarding/reporting.

If not selected, keep notes on exactly where reviewers asked for stronger evidence. Those notes become your strongest asset for the next call.

FAQ for non-specialists

Is there currently an open HIF call?

As of the latest official opportunities page snapshot, no live funding calls are listed. That status can change quickly, so treat this page as a readiness map rather than an “active application form.”

Can I apply to other calls while preparing this one?

Yes, many organisations apply to multiple opportunities, but call systems and account restrictions may require one active application at a time in the same user account.

Do applications need to be in English?

For HIF and related call forms, the submission forms are English-based in the calls checked. Some calls provide translated handbooks, but they still require submissions in English.

Do I need partnerships at EOI stage?

Official guidance says you are not usually required to submit final signed partnerships at EOI stage, but you should include suggested partners and move to more concrete confirmation by full proposal stage.

Is this only for large organisations?

No. HIF has supported teams at different scales through different calls. Small and mid-sized organisations are common in innovation spaces, provided they demonstrate grounded capacity and strong context fit.

Official links

• HIF programme page (canonical)
• Current funding opportunities
• Funding guidance overview
• Applying for a grant
• Funding Guide: Humanitarian Innovation Fund
• Example closed call: AI for Humanitarians
• Example closed call: GBV Tech Innovation Challenge

What to do next, in order

1. Bookmark the official funding opportunities page.
2. Build a 1-page project brief with problem, setting, population, and expected humanitarian outcome.
3. Confirm the exact open call criteria before drafting any forms.
4. Draft your EOI using the call’s official structure.
5. Set internal revision dates: now, plus two internal reviewers, plus final quality pass.
6. Register for the application platform early if the call requires it.
7. Submit only when your evidence statements are explicit, measurable, and truthful.

If you do this, you will save time, avoid avoidable application mistakes, and improve your odds of getting meaningful funding feedback even before a full award decision.