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).
- How does the organization identify and respond to instances of community injustice that come to its attention?
- Show how proportionality was applied (minimum vs enhanced controls) and justify any waivers.
- Describe the formal programs or initiatives dedicated to addressing community injustices. How are resources (financial, human) allocated to these efforts?
- What processes are in place to proactively identify systemic injustices (CJNA) and how do findings inform selection?
- Show the scoring calculation for the Justice Initiatives Outcomes Index (including co-design and external change scoring) and how it informed next-year planning.
- How does the board assure CC9 and Electoral Commission compliance for campaigning (Campaign Compliance Record)?
- What risk, safeguarding, and DPIA processes are applied before launching initiatives? How are 'unintended harms' (la darar) assessed?
- How are protected characteristics considered (Equality Impact Assessment) and what accessibility adjustments are provided?
- What grievance/feedback mechanism exists and how are serious incidents escalated to the Commission?
- How are learnings integrated into strategy and next‑year plans (RADAR)?
- Minimum Evidence Pack (per initiative):
- (i) 1-page Theory of Change (problem, inputs, outputs, outcomes, risks).
- (ii) Project plan + budget/time allocation.
- (iii) Community Justice Needs Assessment (CJNA) link + selection rationale.
- (iv) Risk assessment (CC26) with 'unintended harms' section + Safeguarding plan + DPIA/DSA if applicable.
- (v) Equality Impact Assessment + accessibility actions.
- (vi) KPIs with baseline/targets and quarterly results (Index calculation).
- (vii) Partner due diligence checklist + signed MoU.
- (viii) Campaign Compliance Record (if advocacy involved).
- (ix) Grievance log extract + actions + Serious Incident reports (if any).
- (x) Public communications/annual report snapshot.
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | 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. |
| 4 | 4/5 | 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. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Established: ≥1 initiative; Index score ≥50; basic documentation (risk, budget) but limited co-design or disaggregation; needs assessment conducted. |
| 2 | 2/5 | Developing: Activities exist but lack formal needs assessment, KPIs, or risk controls; ad-hoc resource allocation. |
| 1 | 1/5 | No engagement or statements of concern only without resources. |
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.