Improve Campaign Delivery

Proof required

Submit: (1) a one-paragraph campaign brief stating the specific change you are campaigning for, the measurable target you will use to evaluate impact (signatures, attendees, media mentions, policy change triggered, etc.), and the timeline; (2) a confirmed volunteer roster with at least 4 volunteers and their specific campaign roles; (3) evidence of role confirmation for each volunteer — replies, attendance at a kick-off meeting, or a sign-up record. Note: this must be an advocacy, civic, or community campaign — not a commercial marketing campaign for a product or service.

What gets checked

• Campaign goal is specific and measurable — the target must be a number, a deadline, or a defined policy/procedural change that someone external to the campaign can verify occurred
• At least 4 confirmed volunteers with specific named roles — the roles should be distinct and non-overlapping; '4 volunteers all doing outreach' is not a set of distinct roles
• The campaign must address an advocacy, civic, or community concern — a campaign to promote a company's product, a school project with a mandatory participation grade, or a commercial fundraiser does not satisfy the GOVERNANCE standard

Common mistakes

• Setting a campaign goal that cannot be independently measured — 'change the conversation around X' or 'raise awareness about Y' are not measurable; the goal must have a number or a specific observable event as its success criterion
• Counting people who 'might help' as confirmed volunteers — confirmed means a specific agreed role, not enthusiasm at a meeting; the campaign roster requires a concrete confirmation action from each volunteer
• Recruiting volunteers with institutional backing — a campaign where volunteers participate because their employer requires it or their school grades it is not a GOVERNANCE-standard voluntary campaign; the commitment must be genuinely voluntary

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Campaign type check: confirm the campaign addresses an advocacy, civic, or community concern — not a commercial interest; a petition for a community park is GOVERNANCE; a promotional campaign for a new app is not
• Goal measurability: ask the submitter to describe exactly how they will know when the campaign goal is achieved — if the answer is vague, the goal is not specific enough
• Volunteer confirmation: a list of names with no confirmation artefact does not satisfy the standard; each volunteer should have a message, attendance record, or sign-up showing they committed to a specific role

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) a mid-campaign progress report: current status against the measurable target, list of outreach activities completed with dates, and which volunteers completed which tasks; (2) documentation of at least one coordination challenge — a volunteer who was unavailable, a tactic that did not produce the expected reach, or an unexpected obstacle — and how you responded; (3) evidence of campaign reach so far — screenshot of petition signatures, event attendance record, media mention, or community engagement metric at the mid-point.

What gets checked

• Progress report covers actual activities completed, not planned activities — planned activities with no completion evidence do not satisfy the mid-campaign documentation standard
• Coordination challenge documentation describes a real incident and a real response, not a hypothetical — if no coordination challenge occurred, this should be stated explicitly and the mid-point reach evidence carries additional weight
• Campaign reach evidence is real and externally verifiable — a petition link showing signature count, an event attendance screenshot, or a screenshot of a media mention; 'we reached hundreds of people' without a source does not satisfy the standard

Common mistakes

• All campaign activity led by the coordinator with volunteers in passive support roles — a campaign where the lead coordinator performs 80% of the outreach themselves is not a volunteer coordination proof; the coordination milestone requires active volunteer contribution to specific tasks
• Documenting plans rather than actions — a spreadsheet of planned activities is not campaign execution evidence; each activity must be dated and marked completed to contribute to the M2 documentation
• Measuring reach with no methodology — '500 people saw our post' requires a screenshot with an impression count; organic reach estimates without platform data do not satisfy the reach evidence standard

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Activity completion evidence: a list of planned activities with no dates or completion status does not satisfy the documentation standard; each completed activity should have a date and the name of the volunteer who performed it
• Coordination challenge authenticity: if the submitter says there were no coordination challenges, ask what the closest thing to a challenge was — very few volunteer campaigns run perfectly; the absence of any friction suggests the campaign may have been very small in scope
• Reach evidence quality: 'hundreds of people were reached' needs a source; a screenshot of a petition count, an event check-in, or a social media impression count from the platform is the standard

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

Proof required

Submit: (1) final impact report: achievement against the M1 target (signatures collected, attendees, media mentions, or policy outcome), with evidence — screenshot, document, or external link verifying the outcome; (2) volunteer debrief summary from at least 2 volunteers — what did they find motivating and what created friction; (3) a 300-word honest campaign retrospective: what you would change about volunteer role design, what the campaign could not have achieved without specific volunteers, and whether the campaign would have succeeded without your own direct involvement.

What gets checked

• Final impact report shows evidence of the specific measurable target from M1 — achievement, partial achievement (with honest account of the gap), or non-achievement (with honest diagnosis) are all acceptable; no evidence is not
• Volunteer debrief summary reflects what the volunteers actually said, not what the coordinator believes they felt — at minimum two specific quotes or paraphrased observations from individual volunteer debrief conversations
• Campaign retrospective applies the replaceability test honestly — naming which volunteers were doing critical work and what the campaign would have lost without them demonstrates genuine self-awareness; 'the volunteers were amazing' without naming their specific contributions is not a retrospective

Common mistakes

• Reporting campaign success without evidence — 'we achieved our goal' requires the same type of evidence specified in M1 (petition link, event record, policy document, media mention); self-reported success without a verifiable source does not satisfy the standard
• Debrief summary that only records positive feedback — volunteers who found the campaign experience draining provide the most valuable data for future retention; a summary with no friction feedback suggests the debrief was not probing enough
• Retrospective that attributes success to the lead coordinator and friction to external factors — honest retrospectives distribute both success and failure responsibility across the team, including acknowledging where the coordinator created friction for volunteers

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Impact evidence: a self-reported outcome ('we got 500 signatures') requires a supporting screenshot or link; the standard for the M3 impact report is the same as for M2 reach evidence — externally verifiable
• Debrief authenticity: ask the submitter to give a verbatim or paraphrased quote from one of the volunteers that surprised them — the ability to recall unexpected feedback from debrief conversations suggests the debrief was substantive
• Retrospective quality: the replaceability question should name specific volunteers who were critical — 'Priya ran all the social media outreach and the campaign would have had much less reach without her work' is a strong retrospective; 'everyone contributed equally' is not

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