TS-FS-12
Trust & Stewardship
Financial Stewardship
CORE
Compliance
v2.9.7
Project feedback reviewed and acted upon
Systematically reviews project feedback as a practice of muḥāsabah (self-audit) to fulfill its Amānah. This process demonstrates hisbah (accountability) by using stakeholder insights to drive continuous improvement, enhance program effectiveness, and build trust. It distinguishes between routine feedback, complaints, and whistleblowing, ensuring ethical conduct (consent, privacy, do-no-harm), safe channels, and a formal close-the-loop practice (“you said, we did”). It applies the principle of Sadd al-dharā’iʿ (blocking means to harm) by turning reactive complaints into preventative system changes.
Assessment Questions
- How does the organization systematically collect, review, and analyze feedback from project stakeholders (e.g., beneficiaries, partners, staff)?
- Describe the process of muḥāsabah (self-audit) used to translate feedback into actionable improvements. Who is accountable for this process?
- How do you distinguish between routine feedback, complaints, and whistleblowing, and what are the SLAs for each?
- How does the organization close the feedback loop by communicating back to stakeholders, thereby demonstrating hisbah (accountability) and strengthening its Amānah (trust)?
- How do you ensure independence (COI checks, procurement, ToR approval) for evaluations, and how are recommendations translated into a management response?
- What ethical and safeguarding measures (consent, anonymity, referral) govern feedback collection?
- How do you ensure representativeness (sampling plan, disaggregation, power dynamics mitigation) and mitigate bias?
- What budget, skills, and tools are allocated to this process?
- What thresholds trigger independent evaluations/reviews?
- What is the lawful basis, retention, and DPIA status for feedback data (incl. children’s data)?
- How are feedback-derived risks integrated into the risk register and SIR processes?
Evidence Requirements
- Documented feedback collection and review procedures (SOPs) including Triage SOP and SLAs.
- Feedback/complaints register extract showing category, severity, SLA timestamps, and outcomes.
- Samples of feedback tools (e.g., survey templates, focus group discussion guides).
- Action plans or project modification documents showing changes implemented based on feedback.
- Examples of communications to stakeholders reporting on actions taken in response to their input (e.g., newsletters, community reports).
- Evidence of feedback analysis influencing strategic or annual planning documents.
- Record of Processing Activities (RoPA) entry, retention schedule, and DPIA for feedback data.
- Sampling frames and analysis plans showing disaggregation.
- Feedback action tracker with owners, due dates, closure evidence, and effectiveness checks.
- Board/committee papers summarising trends, risks, and serious incident escalations.
- Independent evaluation/review reports for significant programmes with management responses.
- Safeguarding referral log (anonymised) showing safe referral pathways used.
Scoring Guidelines
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | 100% project coverage; ≥90% actions closed ≤90 days; ≥70% of closed CAPA verified for effectiveness; ≥90% close-the-loop; board/trustees review trends ≥2x/year; independent reviews for ≥75% of high-value/high-risk programmes; learning published. |
| 4 | 4/5 | ≥90% coverage; ≥80% closure ≤90 days; ≥70% of closed CAPA verified for effectiveness; ≥80% close-the-loop; annual board review; independent reviews ≥50%. |
| 3 | 3/5 | ≥70% coverage; ≥60% closure ≤120 days; some trend analysis; limited external sharing. |
| 2 | 2/5 | <50% coverage; sporadic analysis; minimal action tracking. |
| 1 | 1/5 | No systematic collection/review. |
Discussion (1)
Administrator
2026-03-07 11:07:49.858343
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.