Page cover

3.3 IM Resource Allocation and Budgeting

How much should we plan and invest — and what for?

Despite increasing recognition of the importance of data in humanitarian and development programming, Information Management (IM) remains one of the most under-resourced functions across many organisations.

A 2020 study by CartONG found that IM is often treated as an implicit or secondary task, absorbed into other roles without dedicated staff, tools, or funding. This lack of structured investment undermines data quality, weakens accountability, and limits organisations' ability to organise efficient programme service delivery.

This chapter offers practical guidance to Heads of Programmes on how to address these gaps — by planning, prioritizing, and advocating for IM resourcing in a realistic, scalable, and donor-aligned way.

3.3.1 What to Budget For - IM Cost Categories

To effectively plan for IM, Heads of Programmes should consider the following key cost categories. These costs may be absorbed within project budgets, co-financed across departments, or supported through HQ contributions.

Cost Category
Examples

Human Resources

IM Officer, IM Coordinator, GIS Specialist, Data Analyst, Surge deployments, etc,

Software & Licences

KoboToolbox, Survey CTO, ActivityInfo, Power BI, Tableau, ArcGIS, Tableau, MySQL, Azure, MongoDB, etc.

Hardware & Connectivity

Mobile phones/tablets for data collection, power banks, internet/data bundles, etc.

Capacity Building

Staff training (internal or external), peer learning sessions, onboarding packs, mentoring, etc.

Data Services & Support

Transcription, translation, cloud storage, external data cleaning, visualization support, etc.

Protection & Safeguarding

Encryption tools, risk assessments, etc.

3.3.2 How to Integrate IM into Project Budgets

IM-related costs should be planned from the design phase of a project and integrated into both the operational and MEAL sections of a proposal. The following approaches can support this:

  • Use a percentage benchmark: Allocating 2–5% of the project budget to IM is a general reference point, especially for multi-sectoral or data-intensive programmes.

This range typically covers essential staffing, tools, training, and governance needs for effective, ethical, and scalable IM systems, without exceeding reasonable budgetary limits. It's important to note that the exact percentage should be tailored based on the project's complexity, data intensity, and specific organizational needs.

While specific benchmarks for IM budgeting are not universally established, 2-5% is a realistic reference point based on observed practice across humanitarian agencies.

  • CartONG and NetHope report that many CSOs allocate this proportion for programme data functions — particularly when IM is integrated into MEAL or programme roles rather than supported by a large standalone unit.

  • Similarly, the World Bank and USAID reference 3–5% for data-related costs in broader digital development guidance.

  • While the Sphere Standards and IASC emphasize the need for responsible data management, they also recommend keeping allocations proportionate to programme size and complexity.

  • Pool IM resources across multiple projects: If several projects are being implemented in the same area or by the same team, it makes sense to centralise IM functions and thereby optimise resource use.

  • Direct integration into activity planning: Rather than considering IM solely as a support cost, it can be reflected as implementation activities, for example as the development of data collection tools, training staff or partners in the use of these tools, and the creation of information products.

  • Embed in MEAL: IM costs mayoverlap with MEAL, and can be integrated into M&E budget lines where appropriate.

  • Include surge readiness: Consider budgeting for temporary or roving IM support during peak response periods or assessments.

  • Provide donor-friendly justifications: Use narrative language that positions IM as a tool for accountability, participation, quality assurance, and risk reduction.

Exemplary budget line and narrative justification:

Example Budget Line: “Recruitment of an IM Officer to lead mobile data collection, manage analysis workflows, and ensure timely delivery of participant and service data to support programme implementation and coordination.”

Narrative Justification Example: "This investment enables efficient and reliable data flows for service delivery, enhances programme quality through timely visibility of participant and activity data, and ensures compliance with NRC’s information security and data protection standards.”

3.3.3 Advocacy with Donors and Partners

Securing IM resources is not only a budgeting exercise — it is also a matter of advocacy and framing. Donors and partners may not always recognise the costs of quality IM unless these are clearly articulated.

Key advocacy points for funding IM:

  • IM enables organisations to respond faster and more effectively.

  • IM supports evidence-based programming, not just reporting.

  • Strong IM systems improve traceability, which facilitiates audits, evaluations and accountability.

  • IM reduce duplication and contributes to coordination.

  • Robust IM systems support the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus since they allow to capitalise on data across projects.

  • Responsible data handling requires technical and ethical resourcing.

3.3.4 IM in Low-Budget and Resource-Constrained Settings

Not all country offices or projects will have the resources to recruit a full-time IM officer or invest in complex platforms. However, IM can and should be resourced even in lean operations — not just for compliance, but to improve programme effectiveness and mitigate data risks.

The following strategies can help Heads of Programmes make the most of limited resources while building functional, scalable IM systems:

Prioritize the Essentials

Focus first on the minimum viable setup:

  • Basic data collection tools (e.g., KoBoToolbox, ODK Collect)

  • One staff member (e.g., MEAL or programme officer) assigned as an IM focal point

  • Simple visualisation formats (e.g., Excel dashboards, infographics via Canva or PowerPoint)

  • Document basic workflows and file-naming conventions — this boosts sustainability even without complex systems.

Use Open-Source and Free Tools

Take advantage of the many no-cost tools available to humanitarian actors:

  • KoBoToolbox for digital data collection

  • QGIS for mapping

  • Power BI (free desktop version) or Google Data Studio for dashboards

  • HXL (Humanitarian Exchange Language) for standardization

  • MS Excel for data management and cleaning

Invest in Staff Skills

  • Prioritise on-the-job learning, internal coaching, and community of practice models.

  • Request IM onboarding sessions for new project managers or MEAL staff.

  • Use resources like the this Handbook, CartONG Learning Corner or the IFRC Surge Toolkit to build internal knowledge gradually

Share Resources Across Teams and Partners

  • Identify shared IM needs across programmes or sectors — e.g., one dashboard for all education projects.

  • Pool funds for joint training or consultant support across multiple projects.

  • Tap into coordination platforms (e.g., clusters, working groups) to share burden and tools.

  • Consider embedding IM support into broader project management or MEAL functions where full-time IM roles are not feasible.

REFERENCES & FURTHER READINGS

Last updated