Programme Officer Weekly Report

Officer Name
Programme Name
Region / Cohort
Reporting Week
Report Date
Participants Assigned
Programme Stage

Track module completion and participant movement through the programme arc this week.

Course Module / Activity	Started	Completed	%	Barriers Observed

Programme Stage	# Participants	Change	Observations
Pre-Onboarding
Week 1–2: Orientation
Week 3–4: Foundation
Week 5–6: Application
Week 7: Midline Check

Record all behavioural and retention signals observed this week. These are system feedback, not performance judgements. Severity: L = Low | M = Moderate | H = High (escalation needed). If uncertain — flag them.

Signal	What You Observed	Who	Severity	Action Taken
Silence / Withdrawal
Compliance without care
Slowing output
Reduced peer interaction
Missed check-ins
Comparison anxiety
Performance inflation
Disengagement / dropout risk
Other

Summarise what you observed across the cohort this week. Write from observation, not assumption.

Signal Area	Cohort Observation This Week
Capacity & Efficacy — Are participants handling tasks more confidently?
Identity Shift — Are participants speaking differently about their own ability?
Psychological Safety — Can participants ask questions without fear?
System Fairness — Have participants raised fairness concerns?
Context Barriers — What external pressures are shaping engagement?
Application & Change — Is learning being applied outside the programme?

Summary from actual check-in conversations. If no check-in was conducted, mark N/A — do not estimate.

Participant	Capacity & Identity Signals	Safety & Fairness Signals	Context, Application & Retention

Record environmental pressures and the capital state of your cohort. These shape everything else.

Context Factor	# Affected	Impact on Engagement	Support Provided / Needed
Power / electricity
Internet / connectivity
Caregiving or family demands
Financial pressure
Health issues
Device access
Transport / mobility
Bereavement or crisis
Other

Status: Regenerating / Stable / Eroding / Collapsed. Trend: ↑ improving | → stable | ↓ declining.

Capital	What It Measures	Status + Trend	Evidence
Confidence	Self-efficacy and capability belief
Relational	Trust with peers, PO, and programme
Opportunity	Belief that this leads somewhere real
Emotional	Capacity to stay regulated under pressure

What you did, what you learned, what happened when capital was at risk. If no intervention was made when it should have been, note that honestly.

Participant	Capital at Risk	What You Did	Response	Follow-Up

Source	What Was Said or Observed	Action Taken

What Worked Well	What Needs Adjustment	Surprises / Edge Cases

Your growth matters. Honest self-assessment makes you a stronger officer and gives HerNest the data to support you properly.

Dimension	Honest Reflection
My capacity — What stretched me? What did I handle well?
My identity as a PO — How do I see myself in this role right now?
My support quality — Do I feel safe raising concerns upward?
Skills I applied — What did I actively apply in my work?
Barriers I'm navigating — What pressures affected my delivery?
Honest concern I need to name — Anything I've been reluctant to report.

Area	Need Level (Low / Med / High)	What I Need Specifically
Guidance on a participant situation
Programme process clarity
Emotional or professional support
Resource or tool access

Dimension	Rating (1–5) + Evidence
Confidence in managing participants
Quality of check-in conversations
Accuracy and honesty of reporting
Ability to detect early warning signals
Understanding of ECA / metric framework

This section protects participants, protects you, and protects programme integrity. Complete it last, with full attention.

Area	Status This Week
Programme delivery — Were all sessions and check-ins completed as planned?
Protocol adherence — Were HerNest protocols followed? If bypassed, state which and why.
Participant consent & boundaries — Any concerns?
Safeguarding (physical, psychological, financial) — Any risks identified?
Conflict of interest — Any dynamics that could compromise objectivity?
Accountability gaps — Did accountability break down at any level?

Data Type	Status	Confidence	If Incomplete — Why
Participant data entered
Signal observations recorded
Capital health ratings evidence-based
Check-in data reflects actual conversations
Progression stage data verified

System Risk Area	Severity (None / L / M / H)	Description & Action
Design flaw causing unintended harm
Governance gap
Partner / stakeholder misalignment
Resource failure affecting safety
Ethical concern not covered above

PO Declaration	I confirm the above is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Officer Signature
Date Submitted
HerNest Programme Lead Sign-Off
Escalations Required (Y/N)
Report Status