External record
Plan International - "Improving schools in Ukraine" case study (Building Back Better II)
independent partner publication
Process
How we work
This page explains one path: from a verified need to public evidence. It is an explanatory description, not an approved internal procedure of the foundation.
- Chapter 1 · stages 01-02
- Need and support
- Chapter 2 · stages 03-05
- Structure and action
- Chapter 3 · stages 06-07
- Result and evidence
IN SHORT
Support or a verified need - a structured project - assigned roles - delivered aid - documentation - an achieved result or an honestly open one - public evidence.
Chapter 1 · stages 01-02
Need and support
Work starts from one of two sides - and neither of them is a project yet. First the need has to be checked.
- 01
A request or an offer of support
Work starts from one of two sides: a community, institution or organization describes a need - or a donor programme opens a funding stream.
The request route for organizations - 02
Verifying the need
We match the request against the situation in the community, the programme criteria and the aid other organizations already provide. The point is not to duplicate someone else's work, and not to take on what the foundation cannot carry through to a result.
Chapter 2 · stages 03-05
Structure and action
A checked need becomes a project: who funds it, who delivers it, who is responsible for what - and what will confirm the work done.
- 03
Project structure and roles
We define who funds the work, who delivers it, and what the foundation, the partners and the local side are each responsible for. Those roles are published separately on every project record - donor, lead organization, implementer, local subpartner - and are never collapsed into one shared list.
An example with four distinct roles - 04
Procurement, logistics, handover
Aid is procured and delivered to the institution or community under the terms of the specific programme. The foundation operates out of Kramatorsk.
Where we work - 05
Documentation
For procurement, logistics and the handover of aid we set the package of documents that confirms the work done. Without that package a result has nothing to stand on.
How decisions are made
This block answers the question people arrive with, whether they are submitting a request or running a check: who decides, and against what criteria.Description of the decision process and selection criteria - the whole process description on this page. Needs the foundation's confirmation.
Who makes the decisions
Under the foundation's statute, as printed in the 2024 joint annual report, the executive body is a three-member Management Board: Stanislav Chernohor (Executive Director, Chairman of the Board), Liudmyla Snitsarenko (Development Director), Eduard Malikov (Operations Director). The oversight body is the Supervisory Board: Svitlana Chernohor, Khrystyna Malikova, Olha Nikolska. For donor-funded programmes, decisions are additionally aligned with the requirements of the relevant donor (UNICEF, UHF, Plan International and others).
Joint annual report 2024, p. 55 - "Governing bodies" (download PDF)
What the report does not publish: how signing authority is divided between the three directors, and how decisions are recorded. We do not describe a scheme here that we have not seen in a document.
The criteria we use
- Fit with our mission
- We mostly work through communities, institutions and organizations. Where the foundation runs targeted assistance for people and households, it does so under the rules of the relevant programme.
- Severity of need
- How critical the situation is for vulnerable people: proximity to the front line, number affected, lack of other aid sources.
- Partner capacity
- Whether the applicant organization has the legal capacity to receive, distribute and account for the aid.
- No duplication
- Whether another donor or programme already covers this need, so resources are not spent twice.
- Transparency & accountability
- The partner's readiness to document how aid is used and to report jointly.
- Donor requirements
- Alignment with the goals and rules of the grant programme funding the area of work.
Conflict of interest and controls
What can be checked today: funds from donor programmes are spent under the terms of the relevant grant and are subject to reporting to that donor. Two externally verified records - OCHA CBPF and Plan International - are in the "Reporting & transparency" section.
What we do not assert: the foundation has not published an approved conflict-of-interest policy, recusal rules, a decision-recording procedure or a description of internal controls. We do not describe a procedure we have not seen in a document: the foundation must confirm or supply it before public launch.
Chapter 3 · stages 06-07
Result and evidence
Two things are left at the end: what actually changed - and what lets someone check it from the outside.
- 06
An achieved result, or an honestly open one
A planned figure and an achieved result are different things, and this site marks them differently. Where a result is not yet confirmed we say so plainly instead of rounding in our own favour.
Metrics with a period and a source - 07
Public evidence and reporting
We prepare a report, take feedback into account and publish the evidence available under the project terms. What the foundation has no right to publish is marked unavailable, not hidden.
Reporting and transparency
One evidence example
This is what the last stage looks like in practice: the project result is recorded in a partner's publication, not only in the foundation's own report.
The sequence is indicative: scope and timing depend on the complexity of the request and the requirements of the donor programme.