Proactive Community Justice Initiatives
Evaluates proactive efforts to address community injustices beyond core operations. This commitment to *ʿAdl* (justice) and *Naṣrah* (support) is vital for Islamic excellence, building profound trust with stakeholders and fostering a more equitable society. Indeed, Allah commands justice and excellence...’ (16:90) and asks ‘...what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed...’ (4:75), foregrounding the duty of proactive action. Definitions: ‘Community injustice’ refers to identifiable, evidence‑based harms, inequities, or rights deficits within the sphere of influence. ‘Initiatives’ may include advocacy, access‑to‑justice support, market fairness audits (referencing 83:1–3), or targeted service equity improvements. Proportionality: Expectations scale with size and risk; justice‑focused organizations may satisfy this by integrating controls into core programmes. Do no harm: Apply the principle of *la darar wa la dirar* (no harm) by explicitly assessing and mitigating unintended consequences (e.g., stigma, retaliation).
| Metric | Justice Initiatives Outcomes Index |
|---|---|
| Target | >=70% index score annually; >=2 outcome KPIs per initiative achieved |
| Frequency | Quarterly and Annual |
| Method | Weighted index (0-100). Score = (A + B + C). A (Max 50): % of outcome KPIs achieved × 0.5. B (Max 25): Co-design score (0=none; 10=consultation; 20=co-design workshops; 25=co-leadership/shared decisions). C (Max 25): External Change score (0=none; 10=commitments; 20=practice adoption; 25=formal policy/system change). |
| Unit | Index Score (0–100) |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Ad-hoc/Reactive: The organization responds to community injustices on a case-by-case basis, with no formal process or dedicated resources. Actions are sporadic and driven by individual initiative.
Level 2: Developing
Developing: Activities exist but lack formal needs assessment, KPIs, or risk controls; ad-hoc resource allocation.
Level 3: Established
Established: ≥1 initiative; Index score ≥50; basic documentation (risk, budget) but limited co-design or disaggregation; needs assessment conducted.
Level 4: Advanced
Advanced: ≥1 initiative; Index score ≥70; evidence of co-design (workshops/changes); risk/safeguarding/DPIA fully documented; annual impact report includes participation data disaggregated by protected characteristics.
Level 5: Optimizing
Exemplary: ≥2 initiatives; Index score ≥80; independent evaluation (external or independent internal audit); demonstrable policy/practice change; partner MoUs with enhanced due diligence; full public reporting with EDI breakdown.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | optional | Formal Theory of Change, EIAs, and DPIAs are disproportionate for volunteer-run groups unless specifically undertaking high-risk campaigns. |
| Small | partial | Minimum controls like a basic project plan apply if running initiatives, but formal Needs Assessments and DPIAs are scaled down. |
| Medium | partial | Applies proportionately; 1-page Theory of Change and minimum controls required, with enhanced controls triggered only by specific risks. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- Organization has a community-facing role
- Organization's mission aligns with social justice principles
- Organization operates in an area with identifiable injustices or inequalities
Not Applicable When
- Organization is solely focused on internal operations with no external community impact
- Organization lacks the resources or capacity to engage in proactive initiatives (though this should be a rare exception)
- Organizations whose primary activities directly address justice may meet this criterion by demonstrating these requirements are embedded within core programmes and reporting, rather than running separate initiatives.
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.