Introduction: In planning and implementing humanitarian responses to crises, a crucial set of questions revolves around issues of when and how to close projects. Discussion has primarily focused on exit strategies of organizations. Less attention has been directed to how project closure is experienced and perceived by people living in crisis-affected communities. This study aimed to better understand these perspectives and to develop resources to raise awareness and support dialogue around humanitarian project closure. Methods: An interpretive description qualitative study was carried out in six communities in the Philippines that had experienced typhoons, displacement due to volcanic eruption, or armed conflict. Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with community members and local stakeholders. There were 9-31 participants in each setting, totaling 101 participants. Inductive and constant comparative approaches were used to compare within and across settings and identify practices and approaches associated with project closure that were valued by participants. Working closely with an Advisory Board drawn from local civil society organizations, a guidance document and workshop material were co-developed and tested in the six communities. Results: Elements of project closure that were particularly valued by participants included transparency, collaboration, participation, sustainability, monitoring post-closure, fairness, and preparedness. These findings were used to structure the guidance document and develop workshop materials to increase awareness of considerations related to how humanitarian projects are closed, both for humanitarian organizations and members of communities affected by humanitarian crises. Conclusion: How humanitarian projects are closed is highly consequential and can be a source of harm or can promote positive impacts that endure after a project has ended. Drawing attention to community perceptions of what is at stake related to project closure can create opportunities for dialogue and generate insights to improve humanitarian closure practices and policy, including empowering communities.
Hunt et al. (Sun,) studied this question.