Everyone can inspect core evidence, provenance and public challenges. Paid plans support the deeper, private and collaborative workflows that sustain CHILD.
✦
CHILD will not put core truth behind a paywall.
Open evidence, source provenance, public Living Wisdom Scores and the right to challenge remain accessible on the Open plan.
Proposal, portfolio and funding intelligence
Review with CHILD. See what a funding decision is built on.
One professional workflow reviews proposals, policies, programmes, investments and portfolios through transparent lenses. It tests whether the design addresses root causes, whether delivery is credible, and whose knowledge could change the judgement.
01
Understand the situation
Test whether the proposal addresses root causes, symptoms or a problem framed mainly by the applicant.
02
Triangulate the intelligence
Compare research, evaluations, administrative data, financing, practice, community experience, family voice and child voice.
03
Stress-test delivery
Examine workforce, partners, recurrent cost, political economy, safeguarding, risk and realistic implementation capacity.
04
Make an accountable judgement
Show strengths, weaknesses, missing evidence, confidence, trade-offs, conditions and what could change the decision.
Multidimensional output
Funding Wisdom Profile
Every dimension opens into its evidence, weighting, uncertainty, representation gaps and challenge history. Donors can compare proposals side by side without turning context into one opaque score.
01Root-cause diagnosis02Evidence strength03Child-centredness04Equity05Participation06Feasibility07Implementation capacity08Value for money09Systems fit10Safeguarding11Sustainability12Accountability
Transparent judgement
FundFund with conditionsRevise before fundingDo not fund yet
The judgement shows confidence, trade-offs, missing evidence and the conditions that would strengthen or reverse it.
Country and institutional wisdom
What appears to be changing?
Where is programming poorly matched to needs?
Where do children or communities disagree with institutional assumptions?
Which investments look strongest under current intelligence?