Preparedness Funding

Output

number of [specify administrative units] with funding allocated for disaster preparedness

This indicator measures how many administrative units (for example, municipalities or districts) have officially allocated part of their budget to disaster preparedness activities. It helps you assess whether local authorities are taking concrete financial steps to strengthen disaster preparedness and risk reduction systems.

Determine the indicator’s value by using the following methodology:

 

1) Define what counts as “funding allocated for disaster preparedness.” Use a simple checklist to ensure consistency. Funding counts as “allocated” when:

• Approved budget allocation exists for the reporting year (not a proposal, draft, or unconfirmed commitment)

• Funding is formally recorded in an official budget document (e.g. annual budget, municipal financial plan, endorsed contingency fund)

• Allocation is specifically dedicated to preparedness activities (e.g. Early Warning Systems, contingency stocks, preparedness equipment or infrastructure, etc.)

• In-kind contributions may also be included if they are formally documented and their purpose clearly relates to preparedness.

 

2) Consider whether the allocated funding must be of a certain minimum value to count. General operational budgets should only be counted if a clearly identifiable portion is formally earmarked for disaster preparedness activities, in line with national or local budget rules.

 

3) Conduct interviews with relevant officials - finance, planning, or DRM focal points - to confirm whether preparedness funds have been officially allocated. Where possible, ask about the amount, source, and timeframe of allocation, recognising that access to detailed financial information may be limited.

 

4) Count those administrative units that have an approved annual budget for the reporting year; and have a clear budget line or identifiable allocation for disaster preparedness or risk reduction activities.

 

5) Calculate the indicator by counting the total number of administrative units that meet both criteria above.

Disaggregate by administrative levels, type of funding and other relevant criteria.

1) Do not count allocations that are only proposed or discussed but not yet approved.

 

2) You can adapt this indicator to focus on specific risks, e.g. Number of administrative units with funding allocated for flood preparedness. This is particularly relevant where different hazards require separate budgets.

 

3) To monitor progress, consider tracking the percentage change or trend in preparedness funding over time, such as % increase in preparedness funding.

 

4) For projects with budget analysis capacity (optional), you can also record the value of the allocated funding per administrative unit. You may calculate the average amount or funding range to help assess not only whether preparedness is funded but also how adequately it is financed.

 

5) Where information is available, note whether preparedness funding includes provisions that explicitly support marginalised or vulnerable groups (for example, earmarked funding for informal settlements, people with disabilities, or remote communities). This can help strengthen analysis of inclusiveness but is not required for determining the indicator’s value.