Assign the Question and the Handoff
A nutrition-related concern may depend on several sectors. Coordination helps identify who must contribute, but does not give every coordinator the authority to make clinical, food-safety or engineering decisions. Name a responsible lead for each question and make the receiving role's response visible.
The programming distinction explains direct and enabling work. This page supplies a cross-sector question map for one original fictional school service, rather than a universal mandate chart.
Map the Fictional Riverbank Proposal
Riverbank School proposes extending a four-day service to six days. All circumstances are invented. Food delivery exists for the current service. The expansion has no confirmed additional water provision, staff time or health/nutrition referral capacity. No individual case or operational readiness assessment is supplied.
| Decision Question | Lead Role to Confirm Locally | Contributions and Required Handoff |
|---|---|---|
| What is the actual nutrition objective and is the design appropriate? | Responsible nutrition/health technical lead | Education and food-service colleagues provide the proposed service facts; technical lead records the design advice, limits and required next decision. |
| Can suitable food be obtained and handled for the proposed days? | Food-service/food-safety and procurement owners | Nutrition role checks relevant suitability; logistics checks supply, storage and delivery. Actual safety requirements need competent approval. |
| Are water, sanitation and hygiene arrangements sufficient and usable? | Responsible water/sanitation and facility roles | Food-service and access colleagues specify the activity and intended users; the technical owner verifies the arrangement. A tank purchase alone is not approval. |
| Can learners and caregivers reach and use the service? | Education/service lead with access and protection roles | Hear different user preferences safely; check schedules, physical and communication access. Attendance records alone miss nonusers. |
| How will an individual health/nutrition concern reach appropriate help? | Authorized health/nutrition and safeguarding owners | Verify the actual pathway, receiving capacity, consent/data rules and urgent-concern process. School staff do not diagnose or prescribe. |
| Are household access or cost barriers linked to other support? | Responsible social-protection/program owner | Confirm actual program information and referral arrangements; no automatic eligibility or payment promise follows. |
| Who pays for each required contribution? | Budget owner with each delivery owner | Verify full costs, restrictions and agreement on responsibilities. Being named in a map does not commit another agency's money. |
The rows describe questions and roles to confirm, not which ministry or organization always leads. In a real setting, identify actual decision authority and available services. Do not name a partner as responsible without agreement.
Close One Handoff Properly
Suppose the service lead asks the facility role to confirm water for the two additional days. The request states the proposed dates, activity, user group and decision needed. The reply must distinguish a possible supplier from a confirmed suitable arrangement, identify checks still needed and state who can approve it. A forwarded email saying "water considered" does not close the dependency.
Keep sensitive personal details out of this general map. An actual individual referral belongs in the approved case process with its required permissions. A coordination document should retain only the information needed to manage the dependency.
Handle an Unavailable Receiving Service
If the health provider cannot take additional referrals, record its actual capacity limit and obtain the responsible health/service decision on a verified alternative or adjusted scope. Do not add "refer to clinic" to a leaflet and call the pathway functional. A general program lead cannot make an unavailable service available by allocating an owner in a table.
The filled output is a dependency map with seven decision questions, named local roles still to be confirmed, requested evidence and unresolved acceptance conditions. The expansion remains proposed. Recheck when location, operating days, supplier terms, staffing or receiving capacity changes.
Use the unfunded-dependency review to connect these handoffs to the budget. The food-availability explanation shows why a delivery count is insufficient.
Building the Nutrition Resilience of Systems, 2024, chapters 1-2, Figure 4 and chapter 4, supports considering interconnected food, health, education, water/sanitation and social-protection systems. WFP CC.5.3, version 4.0, 2026, describes intentional design and collaboration in WFP's portfolio context. The table and handoff are original fiction; neither source delegates local clinical or engineering authority.