Programme Quality Toolkit¶

For implementing Commitment Pool Protocols

Disclaimer
This PQT is made possible by the generous support of Danish Red Cross, Norwegian Red Cross, and Kenya Red Cross Society. The contents are the responsibility of Grassroots Economics and reflect the views of Danish Red Cross, Kenya Red Cross Society and Grassroots Economics Foundation, through their feedback in the development of the Toolkit.

Prepared in close collaboration with:
Grassroots Economics Foundation, Kenya Red Cross, Danish Red Cross, and Reinit Research.
Much of the material here is openly available at http://docs.grassecon.org and is fully open source.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS¶

Item	Description
CEA	Community Engagement and Accountability
CP	Commitment Pool
CVA	Cash and Voucher Assistance
DRC	Danish Red Cross
GEF	Grassroots Economics Foundation
KRCS	Kenya Red Cross Society
MEB	Minimum Expenditure Basket
NRC	Norwegian Red Cross
POA	Plan of Action
PQT	Programme Quality Toolkit
CSP	Core Service Provider
CU	Clearing Union
TOT	Training of Trainers
IGA	Income Generating Activities

DEFINITION OF TERMS¶

Term	Operational Definition
Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA)	Programs where cash or vouchers for goods/services are directly provided to affected individuals.
Commitment Pool (CP)	A curated, type-keyed registry of tracked, issued promises — enabling community members to offer and exchange future contributions in trust.
Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB)	Basic goods/services a household requires to meet essential needs, typically calculated for cash transfer programming.
Clearing Union (CU)	A cooperative association of participants for issuing, assigning, and redeeming commitments in a federated ecosystem.
Core Service Providers (CSPs)	Members of a CU that maintain ledgers, train participants, and facilitate arbitration.
Relational Memory	Collective tracking and interpretation of fulfilled and outstanding commitments within a CP network.
Voucher	A tracked promise issued by a person/group representing a future contribution (e.g., labor, food, local currency).
Redemption	The fulfillment of a voucher by the original issuer, returning it to their own ledger.
Swap	A rebalancing between types of commitments — transferring trust and future claims between participants.
Seed / Seeding	The act of depositing one’s own promise into a shared commitment pool, increasing the pool’s trust basis.
Debt (CP)	The quantity of one’s own active commitments currently circulating in the pool.
Credit (CP)	Remaining capacity to issue commitments, calculated as Pool Limit minus current Debt.
Braiding	Facilitated interlinking of commitments across a social or geographic mesh (e.g., inter-village or inter-IGA trade linkages).

INTRODUCTION¶

About the Programme Quality Toolkit¶

The Commitment Pool Protocol (CP) is a regenerative alternative to conventional market coordination. It helps communities record, exchange, and fulfill promises of future contributions — such as food, care, labor, or service — in a way that builds trust and resilience. Unlike extractive economic systems, Commitment Pooling centers on relational accountability and a memory of care.

This toolkit offers practical guidance to implement a CP project, covering all stages of the project cycle:

Preparedness
Assessment
Response Analysis
Setup and Implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation

It supports communities, facilitators, and humanitarian teams to co-create their own pools of commitments — increasing local economic activity, reducing unmet needs, and routing trust where it is most needed.

How to Use the PQT¶

This toolkit is relevant across different phases of response:

Preparedness: Identifying dormant skills and goods that could be made exchangeable via commitments.
Emergency: Coordinating rapid mutual aid while reducing cash dependency.
Early Recovery: Weaving promise networks after disruption, before currency or logistics return.
Development: Supporting self-reliant economies with long-term trust structures.

What the Toolkit Is¶

A practical guide to organizing Commitment Pools, rooted in protocols piloted across Kenya.
A supplement to CVA and humanitarian cash tools, particularly where liquidity is scarce or systems of trust are needed.
An adaptable framework — grounded in regenerative economics — rather than a fixed template.

What the Toolkit Is Not¶

It is not a digital currency guide or fiat-replacement system.
It does not assume a universal implementation strategy — contexts vary.
It does not require high technology — paper-based, verbal, or simple apps can support CP logic.

Toolkit Uses¶

Guide the full lifecycle of a CP project.
Dive directly into specific modules as needed.
Use tools/templates in day-to-day facilitation.
Draw on the appendices for further resources.

Target Audience¶

Primary Audience: - Humanitarian implementers supporting regenerative coordination. - Innovation teams piloting CVA+CP hybrid models.

Broader Audience: - Social enterprises - Community-based organizations - Village savings & loan associations (VSLA) - Local governments & municipal actors - Ethical tech providers - Researchers in care economies

Toolkit Origins and Development¶

This PQT draws from real-world implementation in Mukuru and Kisauni (Kenya) with KRCS and Grassroots Economics Foundation. These pilots tested CPs in contexts of post-COVID economic strain, livelihood rebuilding, and social cohesion work.

This document was co-developed with field actors, researchers, and community leaders — evolving with their input, observations, and lived experiences.

It remains a living document: feedback, adaptation, and new use cases are welcomed and encouraged.

Toolkit Structure Overview¶

The toolkit is structured around five core modules, each aligned to the phases of a regenerative economic project:

Orientation to Commitment Pooling
What is a commitment? What is a pool?
Why pools route trust more effectively than fiat injections.
Preparedness
Mapping community capacities.
Establishing pool boundaries and seeding preconditions.
Preparing for valuation and curation of commitments.
Assessment & Stakeholder Alignment
Identifying underutilized skills or goods.
Building local trust in shared memory systems.
Conducting baseline evaluations and consent processes.
Implementation
Seeding, swapping, and fulfilling commitments.
Organizing local gatherings to deepen engagement.
Coordinating cross-pool swaps or federations.
Monitoring & Relational Evaluation
Are trust relationships growing?
What commitments remain unfulfilled?
Are redemption and participation equitable?

INTRODUCTION TO COMMITMENT POOLING¶

About Commitment Pooling¶

This module introduces the core concept of Commitment Pooling: a regenerative economic practice in which community members make, track, and fulfill promises to one another — not as products, but as commitments. These promises are represented by vouchers, which circulate in a shared pool, enabling communities to coordinate trust, reciprocity, and future contributions.

The module outlines core concepts, legal frameworks (like Nondominium agreements), and essential support systems such as Core Service Providers (CSPs), who maintain the tools, training, and records of these trust-based economies.

Case Study – Binguni & Mbele in Kenya¶

Real-world examples from Kenya illustrate how communities reoriented economic exchange around trust, future service, and communal value rather than currency.
📖 Read the case study

PREPAREDNESS¶

Organisational Preparedness¶

Implementing a Commitment Pool begins with assessing readiness. This includes understanding the local ecosystem of trust, labor, unmet needs, and existing economic activity.

Conduct a landscape review of: - History of shocks and recovery efforts - Legal frameworks (data, arbitration, fiscal governance) - Infrastructure and digital readiness - Social cohesion and governance structures - Existing support services (financial literacy, IGAs)

Gather both secondary and primary data, including: - National/local government publications - Humanitarian and development sector reports - Beneficiary surveys and economic capacity assessments - Training on Data Protection & PSEA (See Appendix)

Self-Assessment: Commitment Pool Implementation Readiness¶

Implementing organisations should hold a facilitated internal workshop to assess and align on four key areas of readiness:

Thematic Area	Focus Questions
1. Enabling Systems	Do we have agreements in place to join a Clearing Union or act as a CSP? Are our technical tools (wallets, ledgers) ready to handle pooled commitments?
2. Programme Tools	Do we understand how to seed, swap, redeem, and track fulfillment? Are our teams trained in the Commitment Pool protocol?
3. Resources & Capacity	Do we have facilitators, mediators, and trainers for trust-based exchange? Can we support Issuing Groups to grow capacity?
4. Communication & Coordination	Are local stakeholders (faith leaders, CBOs, women’s groups) engaged? Are communities ready to issue and hold vouchers based on their contributions?

Organisational Self-Assessment Process¶

Step	Activities
1. Assemble Key Stakeholders	Bring together staff across technical, management, and community-facing roles
2. Plan Workshop	Schedule a 1–2 day workshop with a facilitator familiar with Commitment Pooling
3. Conduct Workshop	Score preparedness, discuss gaps, visualize results, co-design solutions
4. Draft Plan of Action (PoA)	Prioritize actions, secure leadership approval, and integrate into program plans

Programmatic Preparedness¶

Legal Framework¶

A Commitment Pool operates as part of a Fiscal Commons, often governed by a Nondominium agreement — a legal innovation enabling shared custodianship of a resource without private ownership.

Key components include: - Clearing Union (CU): Open commons agreement for voucher-based exchange - Core Service Provider (CSP): Manages technical tools, offers training, and provides arbitration - General Members (GMs): Community groups and individuals who seed and redeem commitments - Service Agreements: Outline how GMs and CSPs interact (e.g., fees, governance, redemptions)

🔗 More on Nondominium

Feasibility Study for a Commitment Pool¶

Before launching, conduct a feasibility study to evaluate: - General CVA context in the region (if running hybrid models) - Community readiness to make and track commitments - Local acceptance and understanding of trust-based systems - Market capacity to absorb and redeem vouchers - Political openness and legal environment

Data collection methods: - Key informant interviews (local authorities, market leaders) - Focus group discussions (potential issuers and holders) - Field visits (to assess tradable goods/services) - Stakeholder mapping (to identify pool entry-points)

Commitment Pool Implementation Checklist¶

[ ] Do we have trained facilitators for workshops and onboarding?
[ ] Are we legally able to hold and support voucher systems (e.g. cUSD, hours, goods)?
[ ] Have we secured a service agreement with a trusted Core Service Provider?
[ ] Are our targeted Issuing Groups ready to seed promises into the pool?
[ ] Have we assessed whether their commitments are reliable and redeemable?
[ ] Can we support local production (e.g., IGAs, gardens, labor pools) to match voucher flow?
[ ] Is our digital or paper-based ledger system secure, accessible, and trusted?

This preparedness phase ensures that both the relational infrastructure (trust, memory, agreements) and the technical infrastructure (ledgers, training, pooling tools) are in place before launch.

The process helps root Commitment Pooling in lived community practice — not as an intervention from above, but as a regenerative grammar of mutual aid and interdependence.

CONDUCTING BENEFIT AND RISK ANALYSIS FOR COMMITMENT POOLS¶

This section outlines how to identify and address risks related to the implementation of Commitment Pooling networks. These include relational, technical, regulatory, and operational risks related to both voucher-based trust systems and the institutions supporting them.

Risk Identification and Ranking¶

Each risk should be mapped across categories, identifying: - Cause (source of uncertainty) - Effect (potential disruption) - Mitigation (reliable fallback or design fix)

Where Commitment Pools are layered with other humanitarian programs (e.g. CVA), integration risks should be analyzed distinctly from Pooling-specific risks.

Risk Categories & Sample Questions¶

Risk Type	Key Considerations
Social Risk	Will the pool remain viable if large debts accumulate? Can seeding and redemption continue without centralized liquidity?
Technical Risk	If a Core Service Provider (CSP) goes offline, can participants still view balances and redeem commitments? Are ledgers distributed or hosted centrally?
Regulatory Risk	Could voucher-based systems be affected by new digital asset regulations? Are pool structures compliant with non-bank obligations?
Political Risk	Do local/national governments recognize trust-based community exchange systems? Are pools viewed as solidarity infrastructure or informal finance?
Exit Risk	If CSP support ends, can the voucher system operate peer-to-peer? Can agreements persist in paper or offline forms? Is knowledge embedded locally?

Risks should be scored using a likelihood × impact matrix (see Appendix).

Mitigation Strategies¶

Use distributed ledgers and paper vouchers to increase resilience
Build redundant local CSP networks to prevent central points of failure
Use service agreements (CUA, CUMA) to guarantee exit pathways and long-term accountability
Promote multi-stakeholder governance via Guardians and community assemblies
Regularly rotate and train local validators to hold memory and operational capacity

MAPPING EXISTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS¶

To strengthen alignment and sustainability, map all existing programs that could integrate with or benefit from a Commitment Pool:

Income Generation Projects → link to seeding capacity
Livelihood Support → redeemable promises in goods/labor
Training Programs → capacity-building for issuers
Cash Transfers → could be converted into stable vouchers for internal trade

Pooling may absorb and metabolize these external supports more effectively if they are routed through shared community agreements and ledger tracking.

STAKEHOLDER MAPPING AND ENGAGEMENT¶

Stakeholders include: - Local governments - Religious and cultural leaders - Community groups and cooperatives - NGOs running adjacent CVA, livelihood, or food programs - Tech providers or civil society alliances

Use the Stakeholder Engagement Guide (see Appendix) to: - Identify roles and spheres of influence - Choose engagement methods and frequency - Develop trust-building strategies based on co-design and iteration

PARTNERSHIP PREPAREDNESS¶

In Commitment Pooling, institutional partnerships are vital — particularly between: - Humanitarian actors supporting communities - Core Service Providers (CSPs) maintaining technical/social infrastructure - Clearing Unions (CUs) offering legal and economic scaffolding

All partnerships should be framed with signed service agreements, specifying: - Roles and responsibilities - Technical handover strategies - Financial obligations and fee ceilings - Dispute resolution mechanisms - Long-term sustainability and exit protocols

Capacity Assessment for Core Service Providers¶

Focus Area	Key Criteria
Services	Can the CSP support digital accounts, identity recovery, dispute mediation, ledger integrity, and redemption tracking?
Scalability	Can the infrastructure scale to thousands of participants? Are microservices modular and reliable?
Legal & Open Source	Is the software governed by CopyLeft licenses (e.g. AGPL 3.0)? Are legal documents (CUA, CUMA) published and accessible?
Inclusivity	Is the system accessible to offline users, low-literacy participants, or those using basic feature phones?
Fees & Equity	Are services zero-rated or capped for vulnerable users? Is the CSP a nonprofit?
Data & Security	Is personal data encrypted and compliant with local/international laws? Are backups offline or community-hosted?

TECHNOLOGICAL PREPAREDNESS¶

Recommended Setup for Commitment Pool Infrastructure¶

Open Source Software
Ensure that the platform (wallets, ledgers, validation logic) is fully open-source and governed under non-restrictive licenses such as AGPL 3.0.
Distributed Ledger Architecture
Use systems that allow any trusted community member (or CSP) to run a node. Ledgers should be locally readable, auditable, and conservable without centralized servers.
Interfaces / Wallet Access
Wallets should allow users to assign guardians for password resets and support both digital and paper formats.
Data Sharing Protocols
Communities must consent to data collection. All shared data must be anonymous and used only for impact evidence and indexing.

CSP Technological Assessment Checklist¶

[ ] Digital accounts and ledger access provided via multiple interfaces (web, mobile, USSD, paper)
[ ] Guardian mechanisms in place for lost access or dispute resolution
[ ] Full support for seeding, swapping, redeeming, and tracking commitments
[ ] Service scalability for new users across regions
[ ] Open source licensing for all relevant software
[ ] Offline and low-bandwidth access possible
[ ] Secure backups of data and ledger states (local and distributed)
[ ] Legal documents (CUA, CSP Agreement) signed and enforceable
[ ] Documentation published in public repositories (e.g. GitHub)
[ ] Long-term service sustainability plan in place (e.g. nonprofit-hosted CSP)

Final Note¶

Benefit and risk analysis for Commitment Pools is not only technical — it is relational. The greatest risk is loss of trust and memory. Therefore, social protocols, shared governance, and layered fallback systems must accompany technical deployments.

The goal is not just resilience — it’s regeneration.

🔍 SITUATION ANALYSIS & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN COMMITMENT POOLING¶

🌾 Needs Assessment¶

A needs assessment helps the Commitment Pool implementation team understand the ecological, relational, and material flows within a target community. It identifies:

What goods, services, and care activities are most needed
Who holds the capacity to fulfill these needs
What gaps or barriers exist in access or trust
How pooled commitments might bridge those gaps through coordinated fulfillment

This lays the foundation for generating and routing vouchers (promises), and informs their volume, value, and stewardship structure.

Objectives of Needs Assessment¶

Understand basic material and social needs
Identify key geographies and groups
Define voucher flows based on community dynamics
Inform valuation and redemption planning

🔧 Assessment Process¶

1. Design & Planning¶

Define goals and outcomes of the assessment
Identify stakeholders and community groups to engage
Allocate time, facilitation, and trust-building resources

2. Data Collection¶

Secondary Data
Used to map historical vulnerabilities, past shocks, existing services, and economic activities. It also helps identify: - Recovery capacity - Program overlaps - Trust infrastructure (e.g. cooperatives, table banking, care circles)

Primary Data
Collected through: - Group dialogues - Household interviews - Trust mapping sessions - Focus groups on access barriers

Topics include: - Goods/services most needed - Access constraints (cost, distance, trust, availability) - Trusted local suppliers - Preferred forms of contribution (labor, food, hours, repair)

🧺 Minimum Trust Basket (MTB)¶

Instead of a monetary "expenditure basket," Commitment Pools begin with a Minimum Trust Basket—a list of recurring goods and services valued by the community that might be exchanged through pooled commitments.

Examples: - 1 bag of maize - 3 hours child care - 5 labor-hours of construction

This basket helps define what vouchers to issue, by whom, and at what scale.

🗺️ Resource & Trust Mapping¶

Identify: - Local producers and services that can seed promises - Gaps in local fulfillment capacity - Supply chains or external supports needed - Redundancies or areas of uncoordinated care

This mapping distinguishes between: - Supply-side issues: trust or production gaps - Demand-side issues: lack of redeemable commitments or accessible care

Key considerations: - Can the local economy meet essential needs through pooled promises? - Are there already trusted informal networks in place? - Are redemption delays likely without capacity building?

✅ Assessment Checklist for Voucher-Issuing Groups¶

Question	Why it matters
Do they already trade among themselves in-kind or via trust?	Shows readiness for non-monetary exchange
Are they practicing group accounting (e.g. table banking)?	Ensures memory and transparency
Do they meet regularly and resolve disputes?	Core to voucher redemption reliability
Are their goods/services valuable to others?	Ensures redemption feasibility
Is there a redemption commitment agreement signed?	Creates accountability
Have they defined issuance limits (e.g. 10% of annual output)?	Prevents overextension
Does their pool levy (e.g. 2%) serve a community purpose?	Reinforces feedback loops
Have they signed membership in a Clearing Union?	Legally anchors commitments

🎯 Targeting for Pool Inclusion¶

Because pools route promises rather than currency, targeting must focus on: - Groups with proven fulfillment capacity - Individuals with high-trust, low-liquidity needs - Geographic areas with sufficient production or care infrastructure

🧪 Example: Poor Targeting Risks¶

If a group issues vouchers but lacks services or goods to redeem them, trust collapses. "Promise washing"—where people circulate vouchers without fulfilling—can destabilize the pool and reduce faith in the ecosystem.

Prevention Strategy: - Use participatory diagnostics - Start small with redeemable commitments - Build capacity before enabling swaps or external trades

🧭 Geographical Targeting¶

Pools thrive where: - Markets or mutual aid networks exist - Goods/services can be accessed locally - Communities already practice reciprocity or table banking

Mapping should account for: - Urban fluidity and cross-border activity - Shared marketplaces - Digital and physical access points (e.g. shops, water points)

👥 Beneficiary Targeting¶

Ideal participants: - Are embedded in active community networks - Offer labor, care, or produce redeemable goods - Already operate with informal credit or trust practices

Individual participants may also be invited if their offering (e.g. soap, eggs, tools, tutoring) aligns with the community's Minimum Trust Basket.

🪞 Targeting Criteria¶

Criteria	Consideration
Member of a community savings group	Embedded in mutual trust
Offers essential goods/services	Redeemable promise flow
Regularly participates in group meetings	Accountability infrastructure
Able to issue and redeem meaningfully	Prevents empty circulation
Participates in shared accounting	Enables memory
Signed agreements with Pool governance	Anchors legal and social norms

🤝 Transparency & Stakeholder Engagement¶

Involve: - Local authorities - Peer humanitarian programs - Traders, elders, caregivers - Community stewards and youth

Commitment Pooling is not extractive. It works best when participants feel seen, heard, and capable of fulfilling—and when systems remain accountable to shared governance.

🧩 Harmonizing with Other Programs¶

Commitment Pooling can: - Complement CVA programs (e.g. layering care-based promises on top of cash support) - Reveal unmet needs through transaction patterns - Extend impact with minimal new funding

In recovery settings, pooling enables community-defined priorities. In emergencies, vouchers may be fast-issued with temporary redemption anchors, and transitioned later into mutual pools.

🌱 IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENT POOLS¶

🧭 Local Sensitization¶

Trainers of Trainers (ToTs)¶

Before engaging commitment-issuing groups or initiating community pooling, it's essential to train local ToTs—individuals rooted in the community who understand local customs, networks, and languages. These ToTs help mediate trust, interpret value systems, and facilitate engagement with pool governance and promise logic.

🫂 Sensitize Local Stakeholders¶

Local leaders, cooperatives, faith groups, and small businesses should be sensitized to the core logic of Commitment Pooling: routing promises instead of money, fulfilling mutual obligations, and anchoring communal resilience.

Use existing gatherings to introduce the idea that:

"This is not a new invention, but a remembered grammar of trust. We are reviving how communities have always pooled commitments to one another."

Sensitization happens in two stages: 1. Community gatekeepers (chiefs, elders, traders) are engaged in closed sessions. 2. A wider community assembly is held to discuss pooling logic, trust flows, and participation conditions.

Coordinate sensitization with existing stakeholders to avoid duplication and ensure optimal attendance. Align with local authorities to ensure legitimacy and smooth facilitation.

🧾 Voucher Generation (Seeding Promises)¶

Once commitment groups are identified and deemed pool-ready, each group undergoes a structured training on:

Defining redeemable commitments
Valuing promises (e.g., eggs, labor, tutoring hours)
Tracking redemptions
Setting issuance limits (max 12% of annual output)
Ensuring every voucher seeded is backed by real capacity

Voucher creation = seeding promises into a shared Commitment Pool.

“Seed only what you can fulfill. Pooling is metabolic: overpromising chokes the system.”

Each voucher issued represents a share of future production or service. These vouchers: - May be swapped within the pool - Are redeemable directly from the issuer - Can be routed toward social support (e.g. elderly care)

📎 See: voucher creation steps

🤝 Conflict Resolution¶

Establish community-rooted mediation structures to resolve: - Disputes around valuation - Redemption refusals - Exit disagreements

Use existing customary structures (councils, women's groups, etc.) to root the trust tribunal logic. All pool members should understand and agree to this restorative process before any vouchers are seeded.

📣 Community Mobilization¶

After vouchers are issued, community mobilization ensures: - Trust-based uptake of vouchers - Responsible circulation - Awareness of redemption terms

⚠️ Warning: Issued vouchers must not be airdropped freely outside the redemption group without consent. Doing so overextends promise capacity.

Each group should invite 3–5 trusted peers to begin accepting the voucher as payment, ensuring: - Redemption is possible (goods/services exist) - Trust is mutual - Capacity is documented

If a group donates vouchers (e.g. to elders), it becomes a social enterprise—a valuable story to uplift.

🔁 Using Vouchers: Circulation & Demurrage¶

Once seeded, vouchers circulate: - Within issuing groups - To trusted partners - In swaps with other community promises

To encourage flow and prevent hoarding, a demurrage mechanism (e.g., 1% monthly decay) can be introduced. This aligns with natural cycles: trust must move to stay alive.

Educate all members on: - Swap protocols - Demurrage rules - Redemption commitments

🏗️ Capacity Development & Integrated Support¶

Humanitarian partners can: 1. Build Capacity: Train groups to increase redeemable production—e.g., maize mills, poultry co-ops, child care collectives. 2. Support via Commitments: - Purchase local vouchers (pre-buying services) - Redistribute them in lieu of CVA (cash) programs - Keep value circulating inside the ecosystem 3. Index Trust Flows: - Map voucher circulation to SDGs - Certify impact for donors 4. Create Treasuries: - Hold committed value to redistribute during shocks

This avoids extractive aid models and boosts local self-determination.

🧍 Participant Registration¶

New entrants—vendors, caregivers, laborers—may be registered by: - Issuing groups (peer invitation) - Field staff (during cycles of program expansion)

Minimum data: - Demographic info - Contact & location - Socioeconomic metrics (e.g. PPI)

All registration must: - Be ethical - Align with data privacy standards - Enable follow-up for redemption audits and trust certification

🧾 Verification & Databases¶

To prevent duplication: - Use unique IDs (e.g. phone or ID numbers) - Store in open or consortium-managed ledgers - Regularly audit for redemption and seeding balance

A Core Service Provider (CSP) manages the ledger (digital or paper-based). The CSP ensures continuity, visibility, and technical integrity.

🚪 Exit Strategy¶

🎓 Ongoing Education¶

Train local champions in: - Pool logic - Voucher lifecycle - Conflict mediation - Seeding and redemption audits

Use community-generated media (e.g. theatre, murals, song) to encode protocol memory.

🛠️ Infrastructure Sustainability¶

Partner with non-profit CSPs committed to open source tools
Ensure local ownership of ledgers (distributed if possible)
Provide fallback protocols (e.g. offline paper redemption) in case of tech outages

🔗 Stakeholder Weaving¶

"Braid" IGAs (Income Generating Activities) together by: - Facilitating regular barter/swap sessions - Sharing trust metrics across groups - Encouraging interdependence, not competition

This transforms discrete groups into a networked metabolism.

A successful Commitment Pool project doesn’t end when the team exits—it evolves as a trust commons, stewarded by its participants.

📊 MONITORING & EVALUATION OF COMMITMENT POOLS¶

Monitoring a commitment pool is a continuous, reflexive process that helps communities and stewards understand how promises are flowing, where trust is thriving, and where adjustments are needed to improve fulfillment and ecosystem balance.

🔍 Process, Output, and Outcome Monitoring¶

💱 Trust Flow Monitoring (Voucher Use)¶

Core questions to assess the health of the pool:

Velocity of Promises: Are vouchers changing hands frequently? High velocity signals vibrant trust circulation and local production alignment.
Transaction Spread: Is voucher use evenly distributed? Or are only a few members trading? Low spread may signal barriers to access or trust.
Demographic Inclusion: Who is transacting? Disaggregate by gender, age, role to surface inclusion gaps. Use this to inform targeted outreach.
Commodity Anchoring: What types of goods or services are being exchanged? Are vouchers routing toward local production or external dependencies?

Trust flows must reflect community metabolism—not just economic activity.

🛒 Market Monitoring¶

To ensure the pool doesn’t distort or destabilize community trade:

Price Watch: Monitor key goods to track if voucher-based trade causes local inflation.
Availability Audits: Are key goods consistently available? Does redemption capacity stay in sync with voucher issuance?
Supply vs. Demand Mapping: Ensure local traders can restock and liquidity isn’t overly dependent on vouchers.

Commitment pooling is intended to stabilize and support trade—not distort it.

📓 Spending Journals¶

Track both: - Voucher-based spending - National currency spending

Journals help identify: - Whether vouchers retain value locally while cash leaks out - Seasonal or shock-based shifts in economic behavior - Complementarity of pooled commitments with other forms of aid

📞 Baseline, Inline, and Endline Reflections¶

Use surveys, phone interviews, and testimonials to surface:

Shifts in trust relationships
Changes in perceived community resilience
Levels of participation in cooperative exchange

📹 Testimonial videos are powerful in rural settings. Let pool members speak to each other across regions—regeneration is contagious.

🧠 Evaluation¶

Plan an evaluation aligned with wider strategic and policy questions. Good evaluation asks:

Are pools increasing incomes and fulfillment capacity?
Are they reducing debt and dependency?
Is community trade diversifying?
Are trust flows equitable?

Where possible: - Use external evaluators - Set clear terms of reference - Include regenerative indicators (e.g. local production, mutual aid frequency, fulfillment rates)

Insights from monitoring and evaluation should be shared:

Internally: With pool stewards and facilitators for learning loops
Externally: With local authorities, peer organizations, and donors to support:
Coordination
Transparency
Avoidance of duplicative or extractive interventions

Monitoring trust flows is not surveillance—it’s stewardship.

📚 APPENDICES & RESOURCES¶

🌱 Educational¶

⚙️ Operations¶

Logical Framework
Team Training Guide
Stakeholder Engagement Guide
Humanitarian Support
📁 docs.grassecon.org/ops

⚖️ Legal¶

Economic Commons Licence
Clearing Union Agreement
Voucher Creation Protocol
Service Agreement
Data Policy
📁 docs.grassecon.org/commons

🖥️ Software¶

Core Services + Ledger
Wallet Interfaces
Developer Tools
📁 software.grassecon.org

📦 External Tools¶

Last update: 2025-07-27