Support Peers Through a Mental Health Awareness Initiative

Proof required

Share your initiative design document: format, intended audience, session or activity structure, and timeline. Share your written safeguarding plan: who to contact in a crisis, how you will handle a disclosure, and a clear statement of the scope and limits of peer support. Share evidence that you consulted with at least one person with relevant experience (a school counsellor, a mental health charity volunteer, a trained mental health first aider) before finalising the design.

What gets checked

• Safeguarding plan explicitly names a crisis contact resource (e.g. Samaritans, Crisis Text Line, or a named school/workplace counsellor) — 'tell an adult' is not a plan.
• Initiative is positioned as awareness and peer support, not therapeutic intervention — the plan includes a scope statement that makes this clear to participants.
• A named external consultation is documented — not just general research.

Common mistakes

• Skipping the safeguarding consultation because you're confident in the topic — mental health peer initiatives require external guidance regardless of your confidence level.
• Designing a therapeutic intervention rather than a peer awareness initiative — peer support without clinical training has a real ceiling that the safeguarding plan must acknowledge.
• Starting recruitment or promotion before the safeguarding plan is complete — the plan comes first.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the safeguarding plan names a real, specific crisis contact resource — not a generic statement. Ask: 'What does a participant do at midnight if they are in crisis?'
• The scope statement in the safeguarding plan should explicitly say what this initiative is not (it is not counselling or therapy) — if it's absent, ask for it.
• The external consultation must be with a person who has relevant experience — check that the consultation record names the person and their role or qualification.
• Red flag: the initiative description promises outcomes that require clinical training (e.g. 'support participants through their mental health journey') — peer awareness initiatives must not make clinical claims.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share attendance evidence for the first session or activity — sign-in sheet, participant list, or a screenshot of an online event showing attendees. Share your immediate post-session reflection (100 words minimum): what worked, what felt unsafe or uncomfortable, and one change you will make. If your initiative is a campaign rather than a live session, share the first public output (poster, social post, video) with evidence of real engagement (reach, reactions, comments from actual people who engaged).

What gets checked

• At least 5 participants engaged in a live format, or at least 50 people meaningfully engaged in a campaign format (not just impressions).
• Post-session reflection addresses safety specifically — not just effectiveness.
• The engagement was voluntary — a required school assembly or mandatory workplace session does not satisfy this standard; participants must have chosen to engage.

Common mistakes

• Mandatory attendance: if participants were required to attend, the governance proof standard (voluntary participation) is not satisfied.
• No post-session safety reflection — running a mental health peer session without reflecting on how it felt for participants is insufficient for this outcome.
• Session became a disclosure rather than a discussion and there was no protocol for it — this is the most important failure mode to document and address before the next session.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm that attendance was voluntary — ask specifically whether any participants were required to attend.
• Review the post-session reflection for safety honesty: a reflection that says 'it went perfectly and everyone felt great' about a first mental health peer session is a red flag — real sessions almost always have one uncomfortable moment worth reflecting on.
• If the submission describes a disclosure during the session, check that the safeguarding plan was used and that the participant was referred to appropriate support — not just handled within the peer setting.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share your initiative summary: total reach (distinct individuals meaningfully engaged), format summary (what you ran and how many sessions/outputs), participant feedback from at least 5 distinct individuals (a link to anonymised form responses or quoted statements with permission), your honest impact assessment (what you believe changed and what you cannot claim changed), and a reflection of at least 150 words on what you learned about the limits of peer support from running this initiative.

What gets checked

• Reach is stated as distinct individuals — overlapping session attendance does not inflate the count.
• Participant feedback is from real participants and goes beyond satisfaction ratings — at least one piece of qualitative feedback is included.
• The limits-of-peer-support reflection is substantive and honest — a reflection that only lists achievements without acknowledging any limitation is not credible for this outcome.

Common mistakes

• Impact claims that require clinical verification: 'participants reported reduced anxiety' is a clinical claim a peer initiative cannot credibly make without measurement instruments.
• No critical reflection — a summary that only reports what went well and avoids what did not suggests the initiative was not genuinely evaluated.
• Feedback from fewer than 5 individuals — a minimum sample is needed for the feedback to carry any weight.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The impact assessment should distinguish between what was observed (attendance, conversation, feedback themes) and what was claimed (reduced stigma, improved wellbeing) — if the submission conflates observation with clinical outcome, flag it.
• The limits-of-peer-support reflection must go beyond 'I'm not a therapist' — ask for a specific example of something that came up during the initiative that was outside the scope of peer support.
• Participant feedback must be from at least 5 distinct individuals — a 5-response Google Form with timestamps is credible evidence.
• Check that the initiative description in the summary matches what was described in M1 and M2 — a complete pivot between milestones without documentation is a red flag.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.