User-impact survey results
Assesses if the organization conducts a user-impact survey for its community support and relief services, evaluating service effectiveness from the beneficiary's perspective. Emphasizes methodological rigor (defined sampling, representativeness), accessibility, safeguarding protocols, and ethical data handling. Rooted in Shura (consultation) and Ihsan (excellence), this feedback process ensures aid upholds Karamah (human dignity). By actively listening to recipients, organizations fulfill their Amanah (trust) and align with the Maqasid al-Shariah (objectives of Islamic law) for societal welfare.
| Metric | Beneficiary Impact Index (top-2-box composite) |
|---|---|
| Target | ≥75% AND representativeness within ±10 pp (or weighted); trend +2 pp YoY if <85% |
| Frequency | Annual |
| Method | Average of top-2-box % across 5 mandatory items: 1. Help needed received; 2. Respectful/dignified delivery; 3. Ease of access; 4. Safer/better ability to cope; 5. Overall satisfaction. Scale: 5-point Likert (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). |
| Unit | Percentage |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
No formal process for collecting beneficiary feedback exists. Feedback, if received, is anecdotal and not systematically recorded or analyzed.
Level 2: Developing
An informal or ad-hoc process for collecting beneficiary feedback is in place (e.g., suggestion box, occasional verbal check-ins). Feedback is collected but not formally analyzed or used for improvement.
Level 3: Established
Formal survey conducted annually with basic sampling plan, core impact items, and published privacy notice; survey safeguarding protocol in place; results reviewed by management; initial action list drafted.
Level 4: Advanced
Annual survey meets ≥75% positive; response rate ≥25% (or 95% CI ±7%); representativeness table produced (deviations ≤10 pp or remediation plan); segmented/trend analysis; documented action plan with owners; ‘You said, we did’ communication issued.
Level 5: Optimizing
Multi‑channel continuous feedback; ≥80% positive with strong methodology (RR ≥30% or CI ±5%); weighting/boost sampling evidence; external benchmarking used; feedback drives innovation; measurable improvements evidenced year‑on‑year.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Highly disproportionate; formal statistical sampling and strict response rate targets are too burdensome for volunteer-run groups. |
| Small | exempt | Disproportionate resource burden; informal feedback is sufficient at this scale rather than rigorous statistical surveys. |
| Medium | partial | Should collect structured user feedback, but strict statistical sufficiency (95% CI) and formal sampling plans can be scaled down. |
| Large | full | Fully applicable; has the resources and beneficiary volume for robust statistical sampling and impact evaluation. |
| Major | full | Fully applicable; essential for demonstrating impact at scale using robust statistical methods. |
Applicable When
- Organization provides direct community support and relief services.
- Services are provided to external beneficiaries.
Not Applicable When
- Organization does not provide community support or relief services.
- Services are primarily internal.
Related Criteria
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.