The Problem

The humanitarian system is data-rich and knowledge-poor.

Every year, millions of people living through displacement, conflict, and climate disasters encounter a system that has never collected more information — and yet that information does not serve the people it describes.

The Problem

Built for organisations, not people

Humanitarian data systems were built to help organisations manage their caseloads — not to give people access to information about their own situation. Registration forms are designed to feed organisational databases. Beneficiary IDs belong to the organisation that issued them. When someone moves between organisations or across borders, their record does not travel with them. They start again.

The result is a system that has collected enormous amounts of data about people in need — and yet those people often cannot find out what services exist in their area, what they are entitled to, or what happened to an application they submitted months ago.

A family displaced by conflict arrives in a new area.

They register with the first organisation they encounter. That organisation runs food assistance. But the family's most urgent need is shelter. The food organisation does not share data with the shelter organisation. The family registers again. And again with the health clinic. And again with the cash transfer programme. Each organisation asks the same questions. Each builds its own incomplete picture. None of them can see the full household. None of them can tell the family what they are missing. And when the family moves to a new settlement three months later, it starts over entirely.

By the numbers
~1 in 3
feel they can give feedback to organisations working with them
Source: Ground Truth Solutions, 2022
< 4 in 10
feel those organisations have communicated their plans
Source: Ground Truth Solutions, 2022
Why Now

Three forces are converging

Financial pressure

ODA contraction is forcing the sector to justify every dollar. Duplication and coordination failure are no longer tolerable inefficiencies — they are existential risks for programmes and organisations alike.

Technology has reached viability

Mobile ownership in displacement contexts has reached levels that make a person-centric digital infrastructure technically feasible for the first time. The infrastructure gap is now a policy and design choice, not a hardware constraint.

Incentives are shifting

Structural change is under way. Donors, coordination bodies, and a growing cohort of reform-oriented organisations are looking for alternatives to the status quo. The window for a shared solution is open.

Want to understand the full picture?

Request the concept note.

Request the concept note