Foundation-year operating scale
CCCP, CHCP and Integrated SPARSH have submitted annual activity/care figures. These remain distinguishable from source-level verified values until Evidence Lock is complete.
Executive / Institutional Command Dashboard
One leadership view.
Programmes, evidence and risk.
This dashboard brings programme delivery, geographic execution, evidence quality, governance, finance/in-kind, partnerships and strategic priorities into one management screen. It is a decision layer—not a replacement for audited financials, signed statutory records or patient-level systems.
54CCCP villages reported
62CCCP health camps reported
782CCCP referrals reported
342CCCP hospital linkages reported
2,009CHCP screened / coverage reported
62 / 80SPARSH visits / beneficiaries reported
Executive Snapshot
What leadership should see first.
Reconciliation remains active
Critical items include camp/community reconciliation, indicator definitions, SPARSH 62/80, CHCP 2,009/430/286 and selected programme caseload claims.
Awaiting audited lock
Financial overview, sources of funds, programme-wise application, audit and Board responsibility remain publication-controlled pending audited figures and signed approvals.
Permission and scope matter
Healthcare network, MoUs, partner service records, related-party review and partner-name/logo permissions require controlled verification before formal public representation.
Cash ≠ subsidy ≠ in-kind
Vehicles, fuel, doctors, staff time, facilities, diagnostics and concessions are recognized only when documented and consistently valued; they remain separate from SCF cash expenditure.
Priority-to-target conversion
Strategic priorities, budgets, targets, survey protocols and geographic expansion require Board-approved dated plans before being treated as committed institutional targets.
Institutional Control
Six control domains.
Board & Governance
Meetings, resolutions, declarations of interest, statutory calendar and controlled records.
Programme Management
Defined leadership, rosters, objectives, geographic responsibility, monthly review and escalation.
Clinical Oversight
Diagnosis, care intent and treatment language require qualified authorization; field teams do not independently diagnose.
Finance & In-kind
Separate recording of cash, patient subsidy and in-kind contributions with CA/auditor verification.
Partnerships
Due diligence, approved service scope, MoU controls, no referral commissions and transparent related-party review.
Protection & Reporting
Privacy, consent, child safeguarding, complaints, incidents, whistleblowing, routine review and annual Evidence Lock.
Performance Layer
Programme cascade without false equivalence.
| Programme | Foundation-year headline | Current evidence status | Executive interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCCP | 54 villages · 62 awareness sessions · 6,515 coverage/service contacts · 782 referrals · 342 hospital linked | Reported | Core mature programme; village/camp and denominator reconciliation still required. |
| CHCP | 54 awareness sessions · 2,009 screened/coverage · 430 referred · 286 hospital visits/linkages | Needs verification | Strong reported care cascade; source register and denominator lock required. |
| Integrated SPARSH | 62 home visits · 80 beneficiaries | Under reconciliation | Continuity model is established; visit/patient relationship needs source-level reconciliation. |
| UMANG | Foundation-year programme activity reported; selected unique-case claims remain unverified | Needs verification | Keep child identity protected; publish only reconciled programme-level outputs. |
| UMEED | Emerging programme architecture | Planned / emerging | Do not convert service-mapping or survey figures into beneficiary impact. |
| UDAAN | Mission-discovery / readiness stage | Planned / emerging | Track discovery, readiness and pilot design separately from achieved outcomes. |
Evidence & Risk Register
Unresolved matters stay visible.
| Area | Evidence required | Risk | Management action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare / diagnostic network | MoUs · referral directory · partner service records | Critical | Confirm partner scope and permission before names/logos are used. |
| Professional / in-kind contribution | Rosters · vehicle/fuel logs · subsidy records · facility-use evidence | Critical | Apply separate approved valuation methodology. |
| Financial overview | Audited financial statements · ledgers | Critical | Do not publish figures before CA/auditor and Board lock. |
| Funding & in-kind sources | Donation register · grants · founder support · in-kind register | Critical | Separate cash, subsidy and in-kind in all disclosures. |
| Programme-wise resource use | Programme ledgers · allocation method · support register | Critical | Document shared-cost allocation basis. |
| Audit / compliance / Board responsibility | Auditor report · Board approval · statutory filing evidence | Critical | Use signed approvals only. |
| 2026–27 strategic priorities | Board-approved plan · budgets · targets | High | Convert broad priorities into dated measurable targets. |
| Community surveillance / survey | Protocol · tools · ethics/data plan | Critical | Do not frame camp/survey signals as epidemiological prevalence. |
| Geographic expansion | Expansion plan · partner map · resource plan | High | Formalize relationships before presenting expansion as operational. |
| Camp/community register | Master register | Critical | Reconcile spellings, repeats and 54 distinct communities. |
Finance & Resource Stewardship
Resource value without double counting.
CashLedger-reconciled SCF expenditure
SubsidyPatient support / concession recorded separately
In-kindDocumented operational support with approved valuation basis
Related-partyTransparent disclosure and independent governance review where applicable
Do not combine cash expenditure + subsidy value + in-kind support into one “spend” figure without showing each category separately and its valuation basis.
Management Rhythm
Decision cadence from field to Board.
DailyActivities, referrals, follow-ups, incidents, consented media, expenses/in-kind and pending actions.
WeeklyPlanned vs completed, roster gaps, referral ageing, evidence gaps, logistics, risks and corrective action.
MonthlyProgramme KPIs, distinct people vs episodes, referral outcomes, finance/in-kind, partners, consent, quality and exceptions.
QuarterlyStrategy, geography readiness, partner performance, budget, risk, quality improvement and sustainability.
AnnualCross-functional reconciliation, programme evaluation, financial/governance review, next-year plan and Evidence Lock.
Publication ruleOnly approved, reconciled and appropriately classified evidence progresses into public reporting.
2026–27 Executive Priorities
From broad direction to controlled execution.
1 · Evidence Lock
Complete indicator codebook, source reconciliation, exceptions and signed verification archive.
2 · Programme Continuity
Strengthen CCCP, CHCP, SPARSH and UMANG follow-up, referral ageing and closure quality.
3 · Geographic Discipline
Plan expansion by readiness, partner capacity, resource availability and formal approval—not aspiration alone.
4 · Finance / In-kind Register
Lock valuation rules, related-party review, founder-associated support and programme allocation methods.
5 · Partnership Governance
Standardize due diligence, MoUs, service scope, no-commission principle and reporting cadence.
6 · Emerging Programmes
Move UMEED and UDAAN through readiness, approved design, pilot definition and measurable targets before impact claims.