Quality Checklist

Quality Assessment Purpose

Use this checklist to validate your activity designs before proceeding to proposal writing and budget development. Strong activity designs score 18-20 criteria met across four quality dimensions.

Activity Quality Checklist Decision Flow

This systematic quality assurance decision tree ensures activity designs meet six critical standards before full implementation. Most activity designs require 2-3 revision cycles—use this checklist iteratively, not as a one-time gate.

flowchart TB
    START["Activity Design<br/>Complete"]:::gray

    CHECK1{"Does activity build on<br/>existing community assets?"}:::gold
    REVISE1["<strong>REVISE:</strong><br/>Identify and integrate<br/>community assets"]:::red

    CHECK2{"Does activity respect<br/>community values, timing,<br/>protocols?"}:::gold
    REVISE2["<strong>REVISE:</strong><br/>Adjust for<br/>cultural fit"]:::red

    CHECK3{"Are appropriate stakeholders<br/>engaged at right<br/>partnership level?"}:::gold
    REVISE3["<strong>REVISE:</strong><br/>Review power-interest grid,<br/>adjust engagement"]:::red

    CHECK4{"Is capacity transfer and<br/>local ownership<br/>designed in?"}:::gold
    REVISE4["<strong>REVISE:</strong><br/>Add sustainability<br/>elements"]:::red

    CHECK5{"Are resource requirements<br/>feasible and sustainable?"}:::gold
    REVISE5["<strong>REVISE:</strong><br/>Adjust scope or mobilize<br/>additional resources"]:::red

    CHECK6{"Does activity clearly<br/>connect to Logframe<br/>outputs/outcomes?"}:::gold
    REVISE6["<strong>REVISE:</strong><br/>Clarify ToC logic and<br/>Logframe alignment"]:::red

    APPROVED["<strong>APPROVED:</strong><br/>Ready for Implementation"]:::green

    START --> CHECK1
    CHECK1 -->|YES| CHECK2
    CHECK1 -.->|NO| REVISE1
    REVISE1 -.-> START

    CHECK2 -->|YES| CHECK3
    CHECK2 -.->|NO| REVISE2
    REVISE2 -.-> START

    CHECK3 -->|YES| CHECK4
    CHECK3 -.->|NO| REVISE3
    REVISE3 -.-> START

    CHECK4 -->|YES| CHECK5
    CHECK4 -.->|NO| REVISE4
    REVISE4 -.-> START

    CHECK5 -->|YES| CHECK6
    CHECK5 -.->|NO| REVISE5
    REVISE5 -.-> START

    CHECK6 -->|YES| APPROVED
    CHECK6 -.->|NO| REVISE6
    REVISE6 -.-> START

    classDef green fill:#10B981,stroke:#059669,color:#FFF
    classDef gold fill:#F59E0B,stroke:#D97706,color:#000
    classDef gray fill:#6B7280,stroke:#4B5563,color:#FFF
    classDef red fill:#E12729,stroke:#B91C1C,color:#FFF

Key Insight

Most activity designs require 2-3 revision cycles. Use this checklist iteratively, not as a one-time gate. Each "NO" answer reveals a specific design weakness that can be systematically addressed. Don't be discouraged by initial failures—they're learning opportunities that lead to stronger, more community-centered designs.

Four Quality Dimensions

Excellent community-centered activity designs demonstrate quality across foundation integration, community authenticity, implementation readiness, and adaptive capacity.

Dimension 1: Foundation Integration (5 criteria)

Validate systematic connection to all Module 1 and Lesson 2.1 foundation work

Problem Tree Root Causes Guide Activity Focus

Each activity clearly addresses specific root causes identified in Lesson 1.1 Problem Tree analysis. Evidence-based (E) root causes receive priority attention; assumption-based (A) root causes have monitoring and validation plans built into activities.

Stakeholder Mapping Informs Partnership Approach

Partnership strategies reflect power-interest analysis from Lesson 1.2. High power/high interest stakeholders have collaborative planning roles; high power/low interest have clear communication protocols; low power/high interest have meaningful engagement opportunities.

Affinity Themes Become Quality Standards

Community priorities identified in Lesson 1.3 affinity analysis translate into specific quality measures and success indicators. Activity implementation approaches reflect community language, values, and definitions of positive change.

Theory of Change Logic Maintained

Activity sequencing follows Theory of Change pathway logic from Lesson 1.4. Assumptions are monitored through built-in feedback systems. Change logic connecting activities to community-valued outcomes is clear and testable.

Logframe Specifications Operationalized

Each Logframe activity statement from Lesson 2.1 is broken into detailed, implementable tasks. Output indicators have clear connection to activity completion. Activity-level means of verification guide monitoring and data collection planning.

Dimension 1 Score: / 5 criteria met

Dimension 2: Community-Centeredness (5 criteria)

Ensure activities build on community assets, respect cultural context, and create sustainable ownership

Asset-Based Implementation Approach

Activities leverage and strengthen existing community assets (human, physical, social, economic, cultural) rather than creating parallel systems or assuming deficit. Community strengths identified during stakeholder engagement are explicitly integrated into implementation plans.

Cultural Appropriateness Throughout

Implementation approaches respect cultural values, communication preferences, social dynamics, and traditional practices identified through stakeholder engagement. Language, timing, relationship protocols, and decision-making processes align with community norms and comfort levels.

Partnership Quality and Equity

Community members have meaningful roles in activity planning, implementation, and evaluation—not just as beneficiaries or data sources. Power dynamics are acknowledged and addressed. Partnership protocols ensure equitable collaboration, transparent decision-making, and recognition of community expertise.

Sustainability Through Local Ownership

Activities include explicit capacity transfer and skill-building components. Implementation strengthens local systems rather than bypassing or duplicating them. Ownership transfer is planned from the start with community control increasing throughout project timeline. Resource mobilization strategies support community-led continuation.

Community Voice Preserved in Documentation

Activity documentation uses community language and reflects stakeholder priorities. Quality standards use definitions from affinity analysis rather than external impositions. Planning materials demonstrate authentic community grounding that external reviewers can verify.

Dimension 2 Score: / 5 criteria met

Dimension 3: Implementation Readiness (5 criteria)

Confirm detailed specifications enabling immediate, high-quality implementation

Complete Resource Specification

All five resource types are mapped comprehensively: financial (by source and timing), human (staff, volunteers, partners), physical (facilities, equipment, materials), social (relationships, approvals, networks), knowledge (expertise, research, traditional wisdom). Resource gaps are identified with mobilization strategies.

Realistic Timeline Development

Implementation timeline accounts for community rhythms (agricultural cycles, religious observances, social events), respects community capacity constraints, includes sufficient buffer time (15-20%) for relationship building and adaptation. Task dependencies and sequencing are logical and feasible.

Risk Mitigation Strategies

Key assumptions from Theory of Change have monitoring indicators and mitigation strategies built into activities. Early warning systems identify when adjustments are needed. Contingency plans exist for likely implementation challenges. Decision-making protocols for adaptations are clear.

Quality Standards and Monitoring

Clear quality standards reflect both community priorities and professional requirements. Success measures are specific, observable, and verifiable. Monitoring approaches are participatory and build community capacity. Feedback collection systems enable ongoing quality assurance.

Task-Level Implementation Detail

Activities are broken into specific, actionable tasks with assigned responsibilities, duration estimates, and clear deliverables. Implementation team members could execute activities based on documentation without requiring extensive additional planning. Budget development (Lesson 2.4) has sufficient specification for realistic costing.

Dimension 3 Score: / 5 criteria met

Dimension 4: Adaptive Capacity (5 criteria)

Build in systems for ongoing learning, community engagement, and responsive adjustment

Multiple Feedback Channels

Activities include diverse ways for communities to provide input: formal (surveys, meetings), informal (conversations, observation), traditional (existing community structures), innovative (digital platforms, creative expression). Feedback is actively solicited, not just passively collected.

Participatory Learning Processes

Regular reflection and review sessions are built into implementation timeline. Community and staff jointly analyze what's working and what needs adjustment. Learning documentation captures both successes and challenges with community voice included. Insights inform ongoing implementation and benefit broader community of practice.

Clear Adaptation Protocols

Decision-making processes are established for different levels of change: minor adjustments (week-to-week logistics), major adjustments (monthly approach modifications), strategic adjustments (quarterly outcome or partnership changes). Community consultation requirements are clear for each level.

Flexibility Within Structure

Activities maintain systematic planning rigor while enabling appropriate responsiveness. Timeline includes scheduled review points and buffer time for adjustments. Core quality standards are maintained while implementation approaches can adapt based on community feedback and changing contexts.

Feedback Integration Demonstrable

Clear processes show how community input influences implementation decisions. Results of feedback and resulting changes are communicated back to community. Stakeholders can see their input matters and influences project direction. Documentation demonstrates responsiveness to community priorities throughout implementation.

Dimension 4 Score: / 5 criteria met

Overall Quality Assessment

Your Activity Design Quality Score

/ 20 criteria met

Quality Level:

Strong (18-20 criteria met)

Excellent community-centered activity design ready for implementation. Proceed confidently to proposal writing (Lesson 2.3) and budget development (Lesson 2.4). Your systematic foundation work and detailed planning will impress funders and enable high-quality implementation.

Developing (14-17 criteria met)

Good foundation with some gaps to address. Review unchecked criteria and strengthen those areas before proceeding. Focus on integrating more community assets, clarifying partnership protocols, or adding implementation detail. Consider additional stakeholder validation session.

Needs Strengthening (10-13 criteria met)

Significant gaps in community-centeredness, implementation readiness, or adaptive capacity. Return to Module 1 foundation materials and ensure stakeholder engagement was thorough. Schedule community validation workshop to gather missing input before proceeding.

Requires Revision (< 10 criteria met)

Fundamental issues with foundation integration or community authenticity. Do not proceed to proposal writing. Revisit Module 1 systematic work (Problem Tree, stakeholder mapping, affinity analysis, Theory of Change) and ensure genuine community engagement. Restart activity design process with stronger foundation.

Common Activity Design Pitfalls

Avoid these frequent mistakes that undermine community-centered implementation:

Asset Blindness

Problem: Designing activities that ignore existing community strengths and resources, creating parallel systems instead of building on what already works.

Solution: Return to stakeholder engagement notes. Identify at least 3 community assets (human, physical, social, economic, or cultural) that each activity can leverage and strengthen. Reframe implementation approaches from deficit-based to asset-based language.

Cultural Insensitivity

Problem: Imposing external approaches without adapting to local cultural contexts. Ignoring community preferences for communication, timing, and relationship protocols.

Solution: Review affinity analysis cultural themes. For each activity, specify: appropriate language and communication style, timing that respects community rhythms, relationship-building protocols, decision-making processes that honor local structures. Validate with stakeholders before implementation.

Partnership Extractivism

Problem: Treating community as beneficiaries or data sources rather than partners with expertise and agency. Making decisions about community without meaningful community participation.

Solution: Redesign activities to include community members in planning, implementation, and evaluation roles—not just as recipients. Establish clear partnership protocols: joint decision-making processes, transparent resource management, recognition of community contributions, conflict resolution approaches.

Unrealistic Timelines

Problem: Creating overly ambitious timelines that ignore community capacity constraints, competing priorities, and need for relationship building. Failing to include buffer time for adaptation.

Solution: Add 15-20% buffer time to initial estimates. Identify community rhythms (agricultural, religious, educational, economic) and plan around them. Build in monthly reflection periods. Validate timeline feasibility with community partners who understand local capacity and commitments.

Weak Sustainability Planning

Problem: Creating dependency relationships rather than building community ownership and capacity. No clear plan for how positive changes continue beyond project timeline.

Solution: For each activity, specify: skills and knowledge being transferred to community, local systems being strengthened (not replaced), ownership transfer milestones, community-controlled resource mobilization strategies. Design activities that become less needed over time as community capacity increases.

When to Pause and Strengthen

If your quality score is below 14 (Developing level), pause activity design work. Return to Module 1 foundation materials and ensure genuine community engagement occurred. Schedule validation sessions with stakeholders to gather missing input. Strong activity designs require strong foundation work—shortcuts undermine both community authenticity and implementation success.

Using This Checklist Throughout Implementation

This quality checklist isn't just for initial validation—use it for ongoing quality assurance:

Before Implementation: Complete full checklist to validate readiness. Share results with implementation team and community partners to build shared understanding of quality standards.
Monthly During Implementation: Review relevant criteria (especially Dimension 2: Community-Centeredness and Dimension 4: Adaptive Capacity). Are you maintaining quality standards as implementation progresses?
Mid-Project Review: Complete full checklist again at midpoint. Have you maintained foundation integration? Is community ownership increasing? Are adaptation systems working?
Proposal Writing (Lesson 2.3): Use checklist results to demonstrate implementation readiness and quality assurance systems to funders.
Project Closeout: Final checklist completion documents quality achievement and learning for future projects.

Quality as Community Partnership

The highest quality activity designs aren't those that meet external professional standards—they're those that integrate professional rigor with authentic community ownership, cultural appropriateness, and sustainable local capacity building. This checklist helps you achieve both.

Next Steps

Complete quality checklist honestly, consulting foundation materials and stakeholder notes as needed
If scoring Strong (18-20): Proceed to Examples page to see complete Nigeria Youth case study, then advance to Lesson 2.3 (Proposal Writing)
If scoring Developing (14-17): Strengthen identified gap areas before proceeding, consider additional stakeholder validation
If scoring lower: Return to Module 1 foundation work and conduct deeper community engagement before redesigning activities
Save completed checklist as part of project documentation and quality assurance evidence for proposals