The Big Why
Funding and resource allocation decisions are often opaque and political; existing metrics underweight future harm and community perspectives.
What will change?
Creates a transparent, defensible basis for allocation of resources; enables diplomatic use of evidence in negotiations (e.g., ceasefires, access).
Donors, pooled funds, clusters, and governments seeking fairer allocations under scarcity will have the evidence they need for their own advocacy efforts.
What the idea involves
Prioritisation Framework: A modular schema blending indicators (exposure, vulnerability, coping capacity) with participatory weighting. Includes a ‘future harm’ module and uncertainty treatment.
Methods Toolkit: Protocols for rapid mixed-methods estimation under imperfect data; templates for community involvement; bias detection and sensitivity analysis.
Platform & Pipelines: Data ingestion from humanitarian sources; model catalogue (scenario, nowcast/forecast); plain-language decision briefs.
Governance: Oversight panel (agencies, local reps, ethicists); audit trail; appeals mechanism for country teams.
Deployment: Country playbooks; training-of-trainers; guidance for pooled funds to reference rankings.
What would it take to deliver it?
Delivery process: Multi-year research consortium and several country pilots.
Structure: Independent secretariat with implementing partners.
Staffing needs: Modellers, qualitative leads, field facilitators, data engineers, policy translators, MEL.
Partnerships required: ACAPS/HDX-style data actors, national statistics offices, NGOs, community orgs.
Key capacities: Predictive modelling, participatory methods, ethics, diplomacy.
Where it stands and what's next?
Stage: Concept.
Next steps: convene donors and decision-makers to understand who has the political capital to host and develop this.
Opportunities to get involved
Donors to test integration with pooled funds; governments/NGOs to host pilots; universities to lead modelling and methods work.