Systemic Altruism
← Back to the cohort
Justice & public goodsPreliminary editorial review

Sahana Software Foundation

Stewards Sahana Eden, now based on Eden ASP, as a foundation for professional teams building humanitarian applications.

Visit the organization ↗

Systemic Altruism practice potential: 64–74/100
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.

Who this work enables

Tools & support for charities: A common humanitarian case-management foundation for professional implementation teams serving aid organizations.

Open-source evidence · license checked

  • Sahana Eden — MIT license file. Organization’s role: steward.
    Named repository license inspected on the review date; dependencies, data, content, trademarks and hosted services have separate terms. License-file snapshot: 1ba92cbba9d4aea695b724bc86fcfe409e542999.

License checked 2026-10-27. This is not a security audit, proof of current support or effectiveness, or a promise of free hosting. A sponsor or steward is not necessarily the sole developer. Unchecked profiles are not evidence of closed code. No extra score points are added.

Humanity’s Checklist source match

Coordination — editorial, partial alignment.

Shared assistance-management infrastructure targets fragmentation between responders and services, a partial match to the coordination source. Actual cross-organization information sharing and effective response need separate evidence.

Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.

Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.

Compare alternatives for a funder →

The proposed pathway

Reusable assistance-management infrastructure for humanitarian teams

Six dimensions, with rationale

Structural depth

3 / 4

A shared humanitarian application core addresses repeated assistance-management and organizational coordination constraints.

Institutional reach

3 / 4

The current implementing-team ecosystem spans several countries; potential reach is not a demonstrated global response footprint.

Durability

2 / 4

Reusable code and trained teams can support ongoing services, but maintenance and emergency readiness must be sustained.

Scalability

3 / 4

MIT code supports adaptation, but current Eden ASP is explicitly a foundation for professional teams, not turnkey self-deployment by charities.

Funding additionality

Unreviewed

Unknown: current marginal funding, restricted allocations, delivery capacity and the counterfactual have not been audited.

Community agency

Unreviewed

Unknown: open licenses, participation or contributor governance do not establish audited consequential rights for affected communities.

Evidence and selection

Organization reported; primary mechanism and named repository license inspected

Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.

A testable next question

Do professionally supported deployments improve timely, equitable and safe assistance compared with alternative workflows during real operational stress?

Review confidence: Moderate for documented design and license; low for systemic attribution. Current Eden ASP-based Sahana Eden and supporting foundation design; the legacy codebase is not presented as the current main branch.

What remains uncertain

The foundation reports Eden ASP became the main branch in May 2025. Specialist deployment, data protection, support continuity and disaster readiness are required. A shared database can create surveillance or exclusion risks and is not evidence of lives saved.

Sources to inspect

Propose a sourced correction →

Axis review: 2026-10-27 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage