Flow Maturity Survey — 10-Minute Self-Assessment

Context — Section 1 of 4

Setting the context

These questions help interpret your answers against the kind of shock your system needs to handle and whether it has been tested in practice.

Q1 — What is the primary shock risk your fiscal system needs to be ready for?

Select the option that best reflects your context.

Climate and weather eventsFloods, storms, cyclones, drought, or other climate-related shocks

Conflict or political instabilityActive conflict, post-conflict reconstruction, or political crisis

Pandemic or public health emergencyDisease outbreaks, health system shocks, or pandemic response

Multiple or compound shocksOverlapping or sequential shocks across more than one category

Not yet definedThe primary shock risk has not been formally assessed

Q2 — Has your system been activated in response to a major shock in the last five years?

This helps calibrate the readout against actual activation experience rather than design intent alone.

Yes — finance reached communities within the crisis windowThe system was activated and funds moved at reasonable speed

Yes — but finance was significantly delayed or constrainedThe system was activated but bottlenecks limited speed or reach

Yes — but we relied primarily on external or humanitarian channelsGovernment systems were bypassed or supplemented by partners

No — the system has not been tested at scaleNo major shock activation in the last five years

Please answer both questions before continuing.

Domain 1 — Section 2 of 4

Execution trunk

The execution trunk is the core payment rail that turns spending authority into actual payments. These questions assess how quickly and reliably that rail can operate under pressure.

Q3 — When a shock occurs, how is emergency spending authority granted?

This tests whether activation can begin quickly or whether it depends on a political decision that introduces delay.

Automatically — pre-delegated authority is in placeEmergency spending authority is pre-delegated for defined scenarios and triggers

By ministerial decisionFast, but dependent on availability and judgment at the moment of shock

By cabinet or parliamentary approvalStructured, but introduces significant delay before authority is granted

This has not been formally defined or testedThe activation pathway is unclear or undocumented

Q4 — Once spending authority is granted, how quickly can funds be committed and disbursed?

This tests whether the commitment and payment infrastructure can operate at crisis speed.

Within days — emergency rules are in place and testedEmergency procurement and payment processes are adapted for speed and have been used in practice

Within weeks — standard processes with some adaptationSome emergency adaptations exist, but most standard controls still apply

Within months — standard processes without adaptationNo meaningful emergency adjustments to commitment or disbursement rules

This has not been assessed or testedCommitment and disbursement speed under crisis conditions is not known

Q5 — Are emergency finance flows visible and trackable within the core financial management system?

This tests whether crisis funds can be monitored and accounted for without relying on parallel systems.

Yes — emergency flows are on-budget and fully integratedCrisis finance is processed through the core FMIS with real-time visibility

Partially — a mix of on-budget and parallel systemsSome emergency finance flows through the core system, some does not

No — emergency finance flows primarily off-budgetParallel systems reduce consolidated visibility at a critical time

This has not been assessedHow emergency finance integrates with the core system is not known

Please answer all three questions before continuing.

Domain 2 — Section 3 of 4

Financing channels

Financing channels are the instruments that supply emergency liquidity. These questions assess whether they exist, whether they have been activated, and whether likely needs are actually covered.

Q6 — Which pre-arranged crisis finance instruments does your system currently have access to?

Select all that apply.

Parametric insuranceTriggers automatically on defined parameters

Contingent creditPre-agreed drawdown facility

Catastrophe bondMarket-based risk transfer instrument with defined trigger and payout

Contingency reserveDedicated emergency budget allocation held within the fiscal system

None of the aboveNo pre-arranged crisis finance instruments are currently in place

This has not been assessedInstrument coverage has not been formally reviewed

Q7 — Have any pre-arranged instruments been activated in the last five years?

Activation experience is the strongest indicator of whether instruments perform as intended.

Yes — activation was fast and within the expected timeframeInstruments triggered and funds became available as intended

Yes — but activation was slower than expectedInstruments triggered, but procedural or institutional delays slowed disbursement

No — instruments exist but have not been activatedPre-arranged instruments are in place but operational performance is untested

No — no pre-arranged instruments are in placeEmergency finance has not been pre-arranged

Q8 — Is the gap between available crisis finance and likely needs formally assessed?

Knowing whether coverage is adequate is a precondition for effective instrument design and reform.

Yes — regularly assessed and integrated into planningThe financing gap is quantified, reviewed regularly, and reflected in planning

Partially — some assessment exists but is not integratedA gap analysis exists but is not systematically used

No — the gap has not been formally assessedWhether current instruments cover likely needs is not known

This has not been assessedThe financing gap question has not been formally examined

Please answer all three questions before continuing.

Domain 3 — Section 4 of 4

Distribution

Distribution covers how funds reach implementing agencies, local authorities, communities, and projects. These questions focus on the last-mile gap where crisis finance most often stalls.

Q9 — When crisis finance reaches the central level, how does it reach implementing authorities and communities?

This tests whether the pathway from central to local is pre-established or improvised under pressure.

Through pre-established subnational transfer mechanisms that have been testedDesignated pathways exist, are documented, and have been used in practice

Through subnational channels that exist but have not been testedTransfer mechanisms are defined on paper but performance under crisis conditions is unverified

Through improvised arrangements determined after the shockNo pre-established pathway — the route is decided when the crisis occurs

Primarily through external partners and humanitarian channelsGovernment systems are bypassed or supplemented for last-mile delivery

Q10 — Are beneficiary registration systems, payment mechanisms, and local delivery infrastructure pre-positioned?

Pre-positioned delivery infrastructure is often the difference between finance that arrives in time and finance that arrives too late.

Yes — systems are in place, current, and testedBeneficiary lists are maintained, payment mechanisms are operational, and local delivery infrastructure has been verified

Partially — some systems exist but coverage is incompleteDelivery infrastructure exists in some areas or for some shock types, but not comprehensively

No — delivery infrastructure is assembled after a shock occursBeneficiary identification and payment mechanisms are established reactively

This has not been assessedThe readiness of last-mile delivery infrastructure has not been formally evaluated

Please answer both questions before continuing.

Crisis Finance Flow Maturity Survey

Setting the context

Execution trunk

Financing channels

Distribution

—