Putting people first
in humanitarian operations

scroll downscroll downscroll downscroll downscroll downscroll down

Ground Truth Solutions

Our mission is to ensure that people affected by crisis have a say in humanitarian action, from individual projects to global humanitarian reform.

We help people affected by crisis to influence:

Project

An accountable humanitarian response in Chad

Since 2018, we have been tracking the perceptions of people affected by crisis in the Lac, Ouaddaï and Logone Oriental provinces to highlight their opinions about the humanitarian aid they receive. We have also interviewed humanitarian staff and their local partners.

Project

Cash Barometer

The potential of cash transfer programming has been demonstrated many times over. But how does the humanitarian “cash revolution” present itself to its intended beneficiaries? What concerns do affected people have, and how can their perspectives help inform a more effective roll-out of cash-based assistance? To find out, we partnered with the German Federal Foreign Office to launch the Cash Barometer.

Project

Community perceptions in Uganda

In Uganda, we are talking to South Sudanese and Congolese community leaders in refugee settlements across 10 regions, to capture their insight on communities’ information access, behaviours, trust and the economic impact of COVID-19.

Project

Amplifying affected people’s views of the humanitarian and COVID-19 responses in Burkina Faso

We are collecting feedback from internally displaced people and host community members in Burkina Faso regarding their views of the humanitarian aid they receive and their opinions on the current COVID-19 response.

Opinion

Trumanitarian podcast: The customer is King

In this episode Lars Peter Nissen talks to Nick van Praag of Ground Truth Solutions about whether or not the customer is yet king in humanitarian action.

Opinion

Polls are not a substitute for dialogue with your constituents: what can we learn from the US elections?

How do we distinguish between two very different forms of public inquiry – election polls and surveys of affected people in humanitarian crises? Can we learn lessons from one to inform the other? How do we safeguard against wild inaccuracies?