Project: Illustrative Kenya Community WASH and Livelihoods Project

Create a trusted operating rhythm around community-owned WASH:

• obtain organisational authority and define safe information boundaries;
• establish what is known, unknown and contested;
• connect community feedback to relevant concerns, actions, people, locations and deliverables;
• clarify committee, technical, financial, safeguarding and maintenance responsibilities;
• distinguish infrastructure and activities delivered from services, behaviour and benefits sustained;
• give communities, implementers and prospective funders progressively maintained evidence for decisions.

The plan must remain usable where connectivity, literacy, language, disability or fear of criticism would otherwise restrict participation.

By Day 90, subject to authorisation and continuation approval:

• the real project's scope, participating locations, authorised stakeholders and information boundaries are documented;
• the 7-Day Review report and six-month PHC Service decision have been completed;
• priority WASH, governance and livelihood Concerns are recorded with responsible Actions and evidence needs;
• community committee authority, representation and accountability have been examined rather than presumed;
• baseline views exist for water-system functionality, sanitation and hygiene practice, inclusion, maintenance, finance, complaints and livelihoods;
• community members have accessible routes to comment or raise concerns, including protected alternatives where needed;
• at least one full cycle from significant feedback through consideration, action and verification has been demonstrated;
• authorised stakeholders receive an evidence-led Day-90 assessment stating what should continue, change, escalate or stop.

Success is the quality and use of this evidence—not a predetermined positive verdict on the project or PHC.

Confirm who is authorised to speak for the project, what information may be used and which communities and stakeholders may appropriately be approached.

Test whether community ownership is a material governance need that PHC can help address, and produce a defensible go/no-go recommendation for the proposed six-month service.

If continuation is approved, establish the minimum roles, access, safeguards and priorities required to begin without overstating readiness.

• Hold an initial meeting with the authorised project representative and selected stakeholders.
• Agree Review scope, confidentiality, consent, safeguarding, data-access and attribution boundaries.
• Review approved project descriptions, governance material, monitoring information, budgets, reports and existing feedback arrangements.
• Map initial stakeholders, communities, water systems or service locations and key decision rights.
• Use SCALPED to establish initial Schedule, Concerns, Actions, Locations, People, Events and Deliverables records.
• Identify the most important unknowns concerning committee legitimacy, inclusion, maintenance, finance, behaviour change, safeguarding and livelihoods.
• Produce the 7-Day Review report and detailed six-month PHC Service proposal.
• Record the client's go/no-go decision; if approved, agree onboarding, access levels, immediate priorities and the Day-30 mobilisation baseline.

• Authorised Review Scope: parties, locations, source-material permissions, confidentiality and safeguarding boundaries.
• PHC 7-Day Review Report: findings, evidence limitations, priority Concerns and go/no-go recommendation.
• Six-Month PHC Service Proposal: defined work, roles, deliverables, resources, cost and decision points.
• Stakeholder and Decision Map v1: who represents, decides, operates, pays, maintains, verifies and escalates.
• Initial SCALPED Baseline: the highest-priority records needed for mobilisation.
• Day-30 Mobilisation Note: approval status, immediate actions and unresolved entry conditions.

• Written organisational authority and information boundaries are recorded before non-public material is used.
• The Review is completed within seven days of the agreed start and distinguishes verified evidence, stakeholder opinion, assumption and missing information.
• A clear go/no-go decision is recorded; silence or informal enthusiasm is not treated as approval.
• Every priority Concern has an identified reason for inclusion, evidence need and next decision or Action.
• No community contact, personal-data collection or public attribution occurs outside the agreed consent and safeguarding arrangements.

Establish credible baselines before setting performance claims or targets.

Make roles, responsibilities and escalation routes understandable across communities, committees, implementers, technical actors and local administration.

Introduce a proportionate PHC commenting and evidence rhythm that complements existing systems and does not exclude non-digital participation.

• Confirm participating locations, significant WASH assets, services, custodians and existing condition or performance evidence.
• Map committee formation, membership, representation, decision rights, meeting practices and routes for challenge or replacement.
• Conduct appropriately facilitated listening with different community groups, including those liable to exclusion.
• Establish baseline evidence for functionality, water safety, access burden, sanitation use, hygiene practice, maintenance response, community trust and livelihood conditions.
• Map charges, contributions, expenditure, approvals, procurement, maintenance provision and accessible financial reporting.
• Confirm safeguarding, complaints, consent, confidentiality and escalation routes.
• Configure PHC access and create the priority linked records, with guidance for useful comments, evidence and responses.
• Retain paper, verbal, assisted or offline routes and define how authorised information from them enters the project record.
• Agree a short recurring governance and evidence-review rhythm with named responsibilities.

• WASH Asset and Service Baseline v1: locations, custodians, functionality, testing, maintenance and evidence gaps.
• Community Governance Baseline v1: committee mandate, representation, participation, trust and accountability findings.
• Finance and Maintenance Flow Map: contributions, approvals, expenditure, repairs, records and responsibilities.
• Feedback, Complaints and Safeguarding Route: accessible intake, protection, response and escalation arrangements.
• PHC Records and Access Structure v1: priority SCALPED entities, users, permissions and comment guidance.
• Outcome and Evidence Framework v1: proposed indicators with definitions, sources, owners and known limitations.
• Day-60 Status Review: evidence obtained, missing voices, urgent actions and any reason to alter or stop the plan.

• All participating locations and critical WASH assets in the agreed Review scope have a named custodian or a recorded ownership gap.
• Committee authority and representation have been tested with community evidence rather than described solely by committee members or implementers.
• Priority financial, maintenance, safeguarding and complaint responsibilities are assigned or explicitly escalated as unresolved.
• Baseline indicators identify their source and confidence; absence of data is visible rather than converted into a favourable score.
• At least one accessible non-digital or facilitated feedback route is operating wherever digital-only participation would exclude people.
• Authorised stakeholders have reviewed and responded to the Day-60 findings.

Demonstrate a repeatable cycle from community or operational feedback through assessment, decision, action and verification.

Use emerging evidence to improve WASH service continuity, inclusion, committee accountability and funder confidence without turning PHC into surveillance or a substitute for delivery.

Reach Day 90 with a candid decision on the priorities and shape of the remaining service period.

• Maintain the recurring comment, Concern, Action and evidence-review rhythm across the agreed priority areas.
• Track service interruptions, water-safety issues, sanitation and hygiene observations, maintenance response, committee decisions, finance questions, complaints and livelihood evidence.
• Follow a selected group of significant issues from first report to response, action and confirmation by the affected stakeholder where appropriate.
• Review whose voices are appearing in the record and use safe outreach or facilitation to address material participation gaps.
• Analyse repeated comments and cross-entity relationships for systemic causes rather than closing symptoms individually.
• Provide concise, progressively updated reporting to authorised community, project and funding stakeholders.
• Hold a Day-75 learning review to simplify burdensome practices, correct weak definitions and retain what participants find useful.
• Prepare the Day-90 assurance assessment and recommendations for the balance of the six-month PHC Service.

• Operational PHC Evidence Base v2: maintained SCALPED records with significant comments, evidence, responsibilities and status.
• Issue-to-Resolution Case Evidence: selected examples showing how feedback did or did not produce a satisfactory response.
• Community Ownership Assessment v1: evidence concerning understanding, trust, representation, decision influence and accountability.
• WASH Sustainability Status: functionality, water safety, maintenance, sanitation and hygiene evidence within the agreed scope.
• Participation and Inclusion Review: represented and missing voices, access barriers and corrective actions.
• Day-90 PHC Assurance Report: achievements, adverse findings, uncertainties, value demonstrated and recommendations to continue, change, escalate or stop.
• Next-90-Day Plan: priorities and decision points for the remaining service period, if continuation remains justified.

• At least one complete feedback-to-resolution cycle is evidenced; where resolution was not achieved, the blockage and responsible decision are visible.
• Priority operational or governance issues have current owners, Actions and next review points rather than remaining only as meeting discussion.
• Community confirmation is sought for material resolutions instead of relying solely on implementer closure.
• Participation evidence is reviewed by stakeholder group, with important exclusions or safety barriers recorded and addressed.
• Reporting distinguishes delivered outputs, observed outcomes, stakeholder perceptions and unverified claims.
• The Day-90 assessment is used for an explicit decision about the remaining PHC Service and any proposed funding approach.