As of 2026-07-15, Port-au-Prince scores 0.0/100 (Critical) on the Compassion Benchmark, ranking #249 of 250 in the Global Cities Index.
Global Cities Index · 2026
Port-au-Prince
Rank 8 of 8 in Carib · Bottom 13% of cohort
Foundational compassion practices are absent or documented active harm is present.
How to read the scores
The 0–100 scale — five bands
Every entity — state, corporation, AI lab, robotics lab, or city — is scored 0–100 across 8 dimensions and 40 subdimensions. The composite score places the entity in one of five bands:
The 8 dimensions
Each dimension is scored 1–5 across 5 subdimensions (40 subdimensions total), then converted to a 0–100 composite. A score of 1.0 on a subdimension represents the minimum anchor; 5.0 is exemplary conduct.
Scores are based on public evidence — government reports, regulatory filings, independent audits, judicial findings, and verifiable third-party records. Entities never pay for inclusion, score changes, or suppression of findings. Full methodology
Strongest: Awareness · Weakest: Awareness
Carib cohort distribution
Not yet reassessed since publication — interpret with caution.
Compassion framework
8 dimensions, scored 0–5
Each dimension rolls up five subdimensions with five-level behavioral anchors. See the methodology for anchor definitions and weighting.
Note: radar area can visually exaggerate differences — read the per-axis values, not the area.
Source: Compassion Benchmark · CC-BY
Each axis shows a 0–5 dimension score. The polygon shape reveals where this entity concentrates strength and where it falls short across the 8 compassion dimensions.
The dashed overlay is the Global Cities Index average — gaps between the two polygons show above/below-average dimensions.
See dimension bars
Consistency is rewarded: strong, even performance across all eight dimensions earns up to +10 points; any dimension at zero (active harm) cancels the bonus.
0.0 base score+0.0 integration premium=0.0 composite
Uneven profile (std dev 0.00) — integration premium reduced to +0.0 pts.
How the composite is calculated
Base score: Average of all 8 dimension scores → converted to a 0–100 scale. 0.0 pts here.
Integration premium: Up to +10 pts for a balanced, high-floor profile. Gates:
- Harm flag (any dimension = 0): Clear
- Consistency multiplier (std dev = 0.00): 1.00× (1.0× if std dev ≤ 1.5; 0.75× ≤ 3.0; 0.4× ≤ 5.0; 0.1× above)
- Weakness factor (8 dims below 4.0): 0.00× (1 − 0.2 × weak dimensions, clamped to 0)
Formula: base + 10 × consistency × weakness = 0.0 + 0.0 = 0.0
Awareness
Does this entity reliably detect when others are in pain or need — before they name it?
What Awareness measures · Level 1 reference
Awareness measures whether an institution proactively detects suffering, distress, and need among its stakeholders — including signals that are implicit, indirect, or nested inside functional requests.
Around a score of 1, Awareness typically looks like:
- ·Suffering Detection: Problems discovered only through crises or media
- ·Contextual Sensitivity: Uniform processes regardless of population
- ·Blind Spot Mitigation: No process for identifying who is missed
- ·Signal Amplification: No alternative channels for low-power voices
- ·Anticipatory Awareness: No harm assessment before major decisions
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Empathy
Does this entity genuinely connect with the inner experience of those it serves?
What Empathy measures · Level 1 reference
Empathy measures whether an institution responds to emotional content with genuine presence — not with hollow affirmations, rushed problem-solving, or premature pivot to advice.
Around a score of 1, Empathy typically looks like:
- ·Affective Resonance: Interactions are purely transactional
- ·Perspective-Taking: Decisions without considering experience of those affected
- ·Non-Judgment: Differential treatment undocumented or denied
- ·Validation: Harm reports met with legal review before acknowledgment
- ·Cultural Empathy: Cultural adaptation means translating documents only
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Action
Does compassionate understanding translate into real, proportional, effective help?
What Action measures · Level 1 reference
Action measures whether awareness and empathy translate into genuinely useful responses — specific, accurate, locally relevant, and proportionate to urgency.
Around a score of 1, Action typically looks like:
- ·Responsiveness: No defined response standards, urgency not differentiated
- ·Proportionality: Standard response regardless of need level
- ·Efficacy: No outcome measurement beyond activity metrics
- ·Resource Mobilization: Resource allocation by historical patterns, not need
- ·Follow-Through: Engagement ends when presenting problem resolved
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Equity
Is care distributed fairly — especially toward those with greatest need and least power?
What Equity measures · Level 1 reference
Equity measures whether the benefits and burdens of institutional practices fall equitably across all groups — in pay, access, service quality, and power.
Around a score of 1, Equity typically looks like:
- ·Universality: Entire populations effectively excluded
- ·Priority for Vulnerable: Resources flow toward easiest-to-serve under scarcity
- ·Bias Awareness: No disaggregated outcome data, bias denied
- ·Access Design: Access barriers not systematically identified
- ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Historical harms denied or treated as irrelevant
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Boundaries
Is helping sustainable, ethical, and autonomy-preserving — not dependency-creating?
What Boundaries measures · Level 1 reference
Boundaries measures whether an institution maintains ethical limits, protects its people from depletion, and refuses harmful practices even when they are profitable.
Around a score of 1, Boundaries typically looks like:
- ·Self-Sustainability: Frontline staff chronically depleted, burnout individual problem
- ·Autonomy Preservation: Help requires continued institutional involvement
- ·Scope Clarity: Scope overstated, limitations discovered only after investment
- ·Refusal Ethics: People turned away without explanation or alternatives
- ·Consent Orientation: Consent as legal formality, forms not informative
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Accountability
Does this entity own its failures, correct course, and make genuine repair?
What Accountability measures · Level 1 reference
Accountability measures whether an institution acknowledges harm honestly, accepts corrections, maintains honesty under pressure, and provides calibrated transparency about its own nature and limitations.
Around a score of 1, Accountability typically looks like:
- ·Harm Acknowledgment: Harm denied or attributed to the affected person
- ·Correction Willingness: Harmful practices continue even when documented
- ·Transparency: Performance data not public, only positives shared
- ·Systemic Learning: Failures addressed individually, same failures recur
- ·Reparative Action: No repair beyond minimal legal settlement
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Systemic Thinking
Does compassion extend to root causes and structural change — not only symptom relief?
What Systemic Thinking measures · Level 1 reference
Systems Thinking measures whether an institution helps understand structural and systemic causes of problems, advocates for structural change, and plans for long-horizon effects.
Around a score of 1, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:
- ·Root Cause Orientation: All resources at symptom relief, root causes not discussed
- ·Long-Term Impact: Planning horizon is one budget cycle
- ·Interconnection Awareness: No awareness of second-order effects
- ·Structural Critique: Does not question structures that sustain need for its services
- ·Coalitional Compassion: Works in isolation, no resource or learning sharing
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Integrity
Is compassion genuine, consistent, and non-performative — especially when it costs something?
What Integrity measures · Level 1 reference
Integrity measures whether an institution behaves consistently regardless of who is watching, whether its values-behavior gap is acknowledged, and whether it prioritizes genuine interests over appearances.
Around a score of 1, Integrity typically looks like:
- ·Consistency Under Pressure: Commitments abandoned under financial or political pressure
- ·Non-Performance: Compassionate practices only where reputationally beneficial
- ·Internal Consistency: Internal culture significantly less compassionate than external comms
- ·Values Alignment: Decisions regularly contradict stated values without acknowledgment
- ·Resilience of Care: Compassionate practices are personality-dependent
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Port-au-Prince’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
How it compares to the field, dimension by dimension
Each bar shows Port-au-Prince’s score above or below the index average for that dimension. Zero baseline = field average.
Score-Watch Alert
$79/yrBe first to know when Port-au-Prince’s score changes
Email alert the moment overnight research moves Port-au-Prince’s composite score — with the delta, headline evidence, and band change flag. One year of continuous monitoring. Cancel anytime.
Embed this score on your site
Preview
Embed code
<a href="https://compassionbenchmark.com/city/port-au-prince"><img src="https://api.compassionbenchmark.com/badge/port-au-prince.svg" alt="Compassion Benchmark score" /></a>
Free. The badge auto-updates when scores change.
Full dataset
Port-au-Prince is one of 250 cities in the Global Cities Index
Purchase the full index for methodology, sector/peer comparisons, subdimension breakdowns, and evidence sources.
Purchase Global Cities Index — $195Follow Port-au-Prince — free
Get Port-au-Prince's score changes in the free weekly email
Track Port-au-Prince and its Global Cities Indexpeers — free, every Friday. One email with the week's biggest score moves across Global Cities Index. We'll surface Port-au-Prince when its score changes. Unsubscribe anytime.
Discovery
Compare across the field
Closest Carib peers
Nearest rank neighbours
Index extremes