TS-AWM-12
Trust & Stewardship
Asset & Waqf Management
CORE
Excellence
v2.9.7
Service user / congregant satisfaction
Measures the effectiveness of fulfilling the community trust (Amānah) through active oversight (ḥisbah), consultation (shūrā), and sincere counsel (naṣīḥah). It assesses satisfaction across programs, services, and facilities using statistically valid methods. Consistently high scores reflect a dedication to service excellence (iḥsān) and inform continuous improvement, ensuring the rights of people (ḥuqūq al-‘ibād) are upheld with dignity and justice.
Assessment Questions
- Describe the formal and informal mechanisms used to collect feedback, including the specific instrument/questions used.
- How does your sampling plan ensure statistical validity (n≥200/20% or MOE≤5%) and representation of priority segments?
- List every demographic/sensitive attribute collected and justify necessity (data minimisation). Do you collect children's data?
- What is your survey triage protocol for red flags (safeguarding, safety, discrimination) and what are the SLAs?
- Provide specific examples of improvements made in the last 12 months based on feedback analysis.
- How do you ensure compliance with UK GDPR (lawful basis, retention) and PECR (if using digital invites)?
- How are results, including methodology and limitations, communicated back to the community?
- Is there an independent ḥisbah/ombudsperson channel for sensitive feedback?
- How is the 'Voice of Congregants' policy governed and reported to the Trustees?
Evidence Requirements
- Trustee-approved 'Voice of Congregants' policy and Benchmarking protocol.
- Survey technical pack: question bank, version history, sampling frame, data dictionary, anonymisation method, and analysis code/sheets.
- Anonymized reports summarizing scores, MOE, response rates by segment, and trend analysis.
- Action plans with owners, timelines, and budgets.
- Escalation logs (complaints/safeguarding/red flags) showing adherence to SLAs and outcomes.
- Privacy notice, DPIA (if applicable), retention schedule, and processor agreements.
- Evidence of accessibility adjustments (e.g., translated forms, large print).
- Communications to community ('You said, we did') including methodology statements.
Scoring Guidelines
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Excellent satisfaction (4.5+/5) with statistically valid assessment (MOE ≤±5%), high response rates, and demonstrated improvements. |
| 4 | 4/5 | Good satisfaction (4-4.4/5) with appropriate assessment (meeting sampling floors) and follow-up. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Adequate satisfaction (3.5-3.9/5) with basic assessment. |
| 2 | 2/5 | Below target satisfaction (<3.5/5) or sampling requirements not met. |
| 1 | 1/5 | Poor satisfaction (<3/5) or no assessment conducted. |
Discussion (1)
Administrator
2026-03-07 11:07:38.094671
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.