Lead a Community Project

Proof required

Share your written project plan: the problem or need, the intended outcome, the timeline, and a list of the 5+ volunteers who have agreed to participate. For each volunteer, write one sentence explaining why they chose to help — not why you think they should, but what they told you. Share evidence that all 5 have confirmed participation (messages, emails, or a sign-up form response).

What gets checked

• The intended outcome is specific and observable — 'improve our community' is not specific; 'create a weekly free homework club at the library that continues after I leave' is.
• 5 volunteers are confirmed — not 5 people you hope will join.
• 'Why they agreed to help' answers are from the volunteers' perspective, not yours.

Common mistakes

• Recruiting volunteers through authority (assigning classmates, asking subordinates) — GOVERNANCE requires voluntary participation without institutional leverage.
• Writing a plan for a project that has already started — the plan must precede execution, not document it retrospectively.
• The intended outcome is vague: 'make things better for local young people' is not a plan; 'run a monthly skills workshop for Year 9-10 students at the community centre' is.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The project plan must exist before execution — ask when the first volunteer was recruited relative to when the plan was written.
• Confirm that each volunteer's reason for joining is from their own perspective — if all reasons are identical or written in the same voice, they may have been authored by the submitter.
• The intended outcome must be specific enough that you could return in 3 months and know whether it was achieved — if it is too vague to verify, ask for it to be made concrete.
• Check that no volunteers are in an institutional subordinate position to the submitter (students in a teacher's class, direct reports) — GOVERNANCE proof standard requires voluntary participation.

Proof required

Share your midpoint evidence: photos, meeting notes, a working document, or a social media post showing the project in progress. Include a short attendance log or participation record showing that the same volunteers are still engaged. Write 100 words on one specific challenge that came up since the project plan was written and how you handled it — do not describe a challenge that solved itself.

What gets checked

• Evidence is from the midpoint, not the start — photos of the planning session do not count; photos of the project in progress do.
• At least 5 of the original volunteers are still active — if there has been attrition, document it honestly.
• The challenge description names a specific problem and a specific response — 'it was harder than I thought' is not a specific challenge.

Common mistakes

• No volunteer attrition in 8+ weeks of a voluntary project — it is unusual for every volunteer to remain fully committed; unreported attrition is a credibility signal.
• Midpoint evidence is a list of planned activities rather than evidence of completed activities — the midpoint documents what has happened, not what will happen.
• Challenge description is absent or describes a trivial administrative problem — every real leadership project encounters at least one substantive challenge.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that midpoint evidence is dated — undated photos or documents could be from any point in the project.
• Ask specifically about volunteer attrition: 'Have all 5 volunteers been active throughout, or have some dropped off?' — honest acknowledgement of attrition is more credible than claiming 100% retention.
• The challenge description must be specific: if it sounds like a generic leadership reflection rather than a description of something that happened in this specific project, probe with 'When exactly did this happen and who was involved?'

Proof required

Share photo or video evidence of the visible outcome. Share the 3 participant or beneficiary statements — each must include the person's role in the project (volunteer, beneficiary, community member) and one specific thing that changed for them or their community. Write a 200-word honest reflection: what you would do differently if you ran this project again, and one thing that happened that you did not plan for.

What gets checked

• The outcome evidence shows something that exists now that did not exist before the project started — a process improvement, a physical change, a continuing programme.
• 3 distinct participant or beneficiary statements, each from a different person and each containing a specific observation about what changed.
• The 200-word reflection includes an unplanned event — not just what you would optimise.

Common mistakes

• The 'lasting outcome' is only visible while the project leader is present — if the project ends when you stop showing up, it was not a lasting impact.
• Participant statements are written in the same style and voice, suggesting they were authored by the project leader rather than the participants.
• The reflection only describes what went well — a project of 8+ weeks with 5 volunteers will always have produced something worth changing.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The outcome evidence must show something lasting, not just that the project reached its end date — ask: 'Does this continue without you?'
• Read the 3 participant statements for voice consistency — if they read as if written by the same person, ask for each participant's contact details or for the original form responses.
• The unplanned event in the reflection is a credibility signal — someone who ran a real project with real volunteers over 8+ weeks will name something specific that surprised them. If the reflection has no surprises, probe with a follow-up question.
• Cross-reference the final outcome against the intended outcome in M1 — if they are completely different, ask the submitter to explain what changed and why.