Severity and Neglectedness of Humanitarian Crises
Every active humanitarian crisis, ranked by a score that blends how severe it is with how underfunded it is. Move the α slider to weight neglect against severity: at 0 the ranking is pure severity, at 1 it is pure funding gap.
Sources
- INFORM Severity (ACAPS): a 0–10 composite of a crisis's impact, the conditions of the people affected, and its complexity, refreshed monthly.
- OCHA FTS: humanitarian funding reported against each crisis's UN-coordinated appeal, measured against what that appeal requires.
What each column means
- Severity: the INFORM Severity score, 0–10.
- Funding gap: the share of the appeal still unfunded (1 − coverage); higher means more neglected.
- $ / person: funding received divided by the country's total people in need (shown for context only).
- Impact opportunity (crises that are both severe and underfunded): the ranking score, α × funding gap + (1 − α) × severity, shown out of 100.
- α: the slider below: the weight given to the funding gap (neglect) versus severity.
severity 65% · funding gap 35%
| # | Crisis | Severity | Funding gap | $ / person | Impact opportunity (0–100) |
|---|
Ranks the crises with an FTS appeal this year. Coverage is a snapshot on the generated date; appeals open at different times and their requirements are revised during the year, so early in the year the ranking is noisier and coverage understates the eventual total. Regional (multi-country) plans are split evenly across their countries. Where a country has several INFORM crises, the severity shown is its most severe one, while the funding gap and people in need cover the whole country. Click any column header to sort. Data from INFORM Severity (ACAPS/HDX) and OCHA FTS.