Skip to Content
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.

Compliance 6
  • Formal process with defined taxonomy (feedback, complaints, safeguarding, whistleblowing) and SLAs.
    Process Essential
  • Multiple feedback channels with documented handoffs to Safeguarding/HR/Legal.
    Process Important
  • Ethical and safeguarding protocol (consent, anonymity, do-no-harm, safe referral pathways).
    Ethics Essential
  • Defined escalation routes: immediate (≤14 days) to trustees for serious risks; quarterly trend reporting.
    Governance Essential
  • Data protection controls: lawful basis, retention schedule, DPA/processor clauses, international transfer assessments, security.
    Compliance Essential
  • Feedback insights logged in risk registers with CAPA and escalation to SIR where applicable.
    Governance Essential
Good 6
  • Regular analysis of feedback data including root cause analysis.
    Monitoring Essential
  • Documentation of feedback review findings and management responses.
    Documentation Important
  • Action plans (CAPA) based on feedback insights tracked to closure.
    Process Essential
  • Named process owner (e.g., Head of MEL) and documented RACI.
    Governance Essential
  • Structured feedback collection tools
    Continuous Improvement Medium
  • Learning culture that values critical feedback.
    Continuous Improvement High
Better 12
  • Integration with program planning and design.
    Process Important
  • Budgeted resourcing for feedback/MEL (e.g., 3–10% of project value scaled by risk/size).
    Resources Important
  • Sampling standard: defined sampling frame, minimum response-rate targets, disaggregation completeness ≥85%, and power dynamics mitigation.
    Stakeholder Engagement Important
  • Independent review triggers (Budget ≥£250k, High Risk, Strategic) with ToR approval and COI declaration.
    Governance Important
  • Inclusion of beneficiary voice in feedback
    Stakeholder Engagement High
  • Combination of quantitative and qualitative methods
    Continuous Improvement Medium
  • Independent review of significant programs
    Transparency High
  • Transparent sharing of feedback results
    Transparency High
  • Accessibility checklist used before fieldwork (languages, easy-read/visual tools, sign interpretation, women-only sessions, toll-free lines).
    Stakeholder Engagement High
  • Root cause analysis (e.g., 5 Whys, fishbone) and CAPA.
    Continuous Improvement Medium
  • Safe, anonymous channels (hotlines, WhatsApp/SMS, third-party intake).
    Ethics High
  • Regular 'You said, we did' public updates.
    Transparency High
Best 1
  • Participatory approaches (community scorecards, beneficiary advisory panels).
    Stakeholder Engagement High

Related Criteria

TS-FS-01 Trustees review management accounts TS-FS-02 Banking, procurement & AML controls TS-FS-03 Robust accounting system TS-FS-04 Segregate and control Zakat vs Sadaqah (ledgers, banking, donor intent) TS-FS-05 Fundraising costs fairly reported
Version
2.9.7 2025-11-05

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.

Back to Criteria