Participatory-budget board active
Assesses whether the organization has an active community consultation board enabling meaningful stakeholder participation in decision-making. Specifically, it requires allocating ≥1% of the Eligible Participatory Base (EPB) as a ring‑fenced ‘participatory pool’. EPB is defined as the planned unrestricted discretionary programme spend for the coming FY (excluding governance costs, statutory commitments, contractual/committed spend, and designated funds). If EPB results in a pool <£5,000, a floor of £5,000 (or justified alternative) applies.
| Metric | Participatory budget allocation rate |
|---|---|
| Target | ≥1% (L3), ≥1.5% (L4), ≥2% (L5) |
| Frequency | Annual |
| Method | (Participatory allocations / Eligible Participatory Base) × 100 |
| Unit | Percentage |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Informal or ad-hoc consultation on budget matters exists. Stakeholder input is gathered sporadically without a formal structure or guaranteed influence.
Level 2: Developing
A formal charter for a participatory-budget board is documented. The process is defined, but implementation is inconsistent or lacks a defined budget floor.
Level 3: Established
The participatory-budget board is established and active. It allocates ≥1% of the Eligible Participatory Base (EPB) via a defined process with minimum governance and control standards.
Level 4: Advanced
EPB allocation ≥1.5%; ≥90% of the pool is allocated via the participatory process; stakeholder satisfaction ≥75%; public report includes decisions with rationales.
Level 5: Optimizing
Process integrated into strategic planning; EPB allocation ≥2% (or justified cap); equity gaps decrease year-on-year (measured via RPI); external/peer review conducted.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Disproportionate administrative burden; formal delegated authority and ring-fenced pools are overly complex for under £10k income. |
| Small | exempt | Too complex for small charities; informal community consultation is sufficient at this scale. |
| Medium | optional | Advanced practice; excellent for community engagement but resource-intensive to formalise with ToRs and ledger codes. |
| Large | full | Has the administrative capacity and financial scale to manage formal sub-committees, ToRs, and specific ledger management. |
| Major | full | Fully applicable; expected to have robust community representation, formal ratification processes, and delegated structures. |
Applicable When
- Organization is legally constituted
Not Applicable When
- The organization is a private endowment (e.g., Waqf) with fully restricted terms.
- The organization is a subsidiary with no discretionary budget control.
- The organization has zero unrestricted discretionary programme spend (100% restricted/statutory).
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.