Mortality Estimation in Humanitarian Crises

This project is now closed.

What was the innovation?

Estimating mortality associated with a humanitarian crisis is critical to assessing needs objectively, and key for evaluating humanitarian responses. Many humanitarians consider mortality estimation to be among the most significant metrics to define the severity and magnitude of a crisis, and a critical measure for tracking the impact of humanitarian responses.

Why innovate?

In practice, mortality estimation is rarely accurate or comprehensive in crisis-affected settings, if attempted at all. Commonly, mortality estimates are met with methodological critiques of validity and there is little consensus on how reliable estimates are. Consequently, mortality evidence is frequently contested and viewed as lacking sufficient rigour and credibility to reliably guide if, when and how to respond to a crisis.

While a range of actors have been developing robust approaches over the past decade, only a small number of research groups, academic and operational, exist with the expertise and capacity to estimate mortality in crises settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Phase 1: Laying the Foundations for System‑Wide Change

Phase 1 of the Mortality Estimation in Crises Systems Innovation Partnership laid the essential groundwork for strengthening how mortality evidence is generated, interpreted, and used across humanitarian settings. Advances during this phase were twofold.

First, the partnership generated a deeper understanding of the political, operational, and structural barriers that have long constrained the availability, credibility, and uptake of reliable mortality evidence across humanitarian settings with case studies in Bangladesh, Central African Republic, and Somalia.

Second, partners scoped and piloted a shared mortality data observatory to consolidate and make crisis‑affected mortality data - beginning with Somalia - more accessible and usable for analysis and decision‑making.

Through this political economy analysis and early exploration of feasible governance models, Phase 1 demonstrated both the urgency and the feasibility of building a more coherent system for mortality measurement in crises. It also underscored a critical truth: without credible mortality evidence, humanitarian decision‑making continues to operate with a blind spot at its centre, increasing the risk of underestimating crisis severity, misallocating resources, and weakening accountability. The project was delivered by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Evidence for Change (Kenya) and SIMAD University (Somalia).

Phase 2: Building a Coherent, Locally Led Mortality Estimation Ecosystem

Phase 2 built on this groundwork, working toward shifting the humanitarian system from ad‑hoc, crisis‑triggered mortality estimation toward more a systematic, coherent and equitable ecosystem. This phase focused on addressing long‑standing challenges - limited data and access where it does exist, fragmented coordination, political sensitivities and inconsistent methods - while strengthening the conditions required for robust, trusted, locally-led mortality evidence to contribute to humanitarian decision-making.

Working through three complementary consortia, Phase 2 demonstrated that credible, timely and actionable mortality evidence can be generated, even in highly constrained contexts:

• IMPACT Initiatives, in partnership with five national institutions - Evidence for Change; SIMAD University; Addis Ababa University; Mekelle University; and World Needs and Help - supported mortality estimation exercises across Somalia, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Throughout this work, the consortium documented what truly enables and constrains locally led mortality estimation, by examining the operational, political and relational factors that shape national actors’ ability to lead, sustain and use mortality evidence in crisis settings.
• Johns Hopkins University, working with Rebuild Hope for Africa, conducted a rigorous methodological evaluation in DRC and developed a practical guidance for frontline decision‑makers. This included finalising a decision‑making tool to support local responders assess when mortality estimation is feasible, identify which method(s) fit their context, and navigate operational realities including security, budget and data dissemination and uptake.
• Save the Children International, in partnership with IMPACT Initiatives and Evidence for Change, re‑established an initiative including key governance structures - Strategic, Technical and National Advisory Groups - and initiated both a Strategic Framework and Localisation and Engagement Strategy to promote prioritisation, alignment and accountability among humanitarian stakeholders. Building on this, the consortium will continue work under ECHO funding to develop a digital resource hub, making guidance, tools and technical support more accessible and equitable across the sector.

To showcase this work more broadly, a dedicated blog series was published, featuring insights from partners across the consortia and highlighting practical advances in methods, and convening and consensus building, as well highlighting the strong local leadership in humanitarian mortality estimation. These pieces brought the research to a wider audience and shared emerging insights across the humanitarian community.

Throughout Phase 2, emphasis was placed on centring leadership among local and national actors and addressing the political, operational and structural barriers that have historically limited their influence. Across the tri-consortia notable advances were made in innovating research approaches, highlighting and harnessing local expertise and strengthening the wider mortality measurement ecosystem. Together, these advances contribute to improving our understanding of one of the most fundamental humanitarian metrics: how many people have died.

Resources

Watch UKHIH's session at Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week 2026

Watch UKHIH's session at Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week 2025