Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Baseline Volunteer Return Rate Across Two Initiatives
Requires completing 2 initiatives — typically 2–4 months from first initiative launch
Volunteer retention cannot be measured without a before-state. This milestone establishes the baseline: how many of the volunteers from the first initiative returned for a second, and what do those who did not return say (if anything) about why? The GOVERNANCE principle is that you cannot retain volunteers by paying them more or threatening consequences — improvement can only come from genuine value. The baseline must be honest, including honest counts of attrition and honest attribution of causes.
Proof required
Submit: (1) a volunteer roster from initiative 1 with return status for initiative 2 — a table: volunteer name/alias, participated in initiative 1 (yes/no), participated in initiative 2 (yes/no), and if they did not return, the reason given or your best evidence-based assessment of why; (2) a calculated baseline return rate (number who returned ÷ number from initiative 1, expressed as a percentage); (3) a 150-word honest diagnosis of the 2–3 most likely causes of your current retention rate, based on conversations, feedback, or observation — not speculation.
What gets checked
- Return rate is calculated correctly from real data — the calculation must be shown, not just stated; a 'high retention' claim with no numbers does not satisfy this standard
- Non-returning volunteers' reasons are documented specifically — 'some people got busy' does not satisfy the diagnosis standard; each non-returning volunteer should have a specific stated or inferred reason based on real evidence
- Diagnosis identifies causes the leader can act on — 'people have busy lives' is not actionable; 'the briefing process was unclear and volunteers did not know what they were committing to' is
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Roster completeness: the roster should include every volunteer from initiative 1, not only those who returned — selective tracking of only active volunteers inflates the apparent retention rate
- Diagnosis honesty: ask the submitter to name one thing they themselves did that might have made returning less likely — a diagnosis that attributes all attrition to external factors should be probed
- Pool size: if the initiative 1 pool was fewer than 5 people, note this; a 2/3 return rate (67%) from 3 volunteers is not meaningful evidence of a 67% retention pattern
- Calculating return rate from a different volunteer pool — if initiative 2 recruited new volunteers rather than re-inviting initiative 1 volunteers, the baseline comparison is not valid; the roster must track the SAME individuals across both initiatives
- Over-optimistic diagnosis — attributing all attrition to external factors ('they were just busy', 'the timing was bad') and none to the volunteer experience itself suggests the diagnosis has not been done honestly
- Having only 2–3 volunteers in the baseline pool — a retention rate calculated from 2–3 volunteers is not meaningful; if initiative 1 had fewer than 5 volunteers, the baseline should note this limitation explicitly
Implement Specific Retention Changes in Initiative 3
Initiative 3 execution — typically 1–3 months after M1 completion
Diagnosis without action is not improvement. This milestone requires implementing at least two specific, concrete changes to the volunteer experience for initiative 3 — changes that address the root causes identified in the M1 diagnosis. The changes must be documented before initiative 3 begins (not retrofitted after), and each change must have a named mechanism: what specifically changed, for which volunteers, and what evidence will confirm the change was experienced by volunteers.
Proof required
Submit: (1) a pre-initiative change log listing the 2+ specific changes made, each with: the cause it addresses from the M1 diagnosis, the specific change (not 'better communication' but 'a 30-minute briefing call with each volunteer 3 days before initiative 3, with a role card emailed after'), and how you will know each volunteer experienced the change; (2) initiative 3 volunteer roster, showing which initiative 1 volunteers were re-invited and which returned; (3) evidence from initiative 3 execution that the changes were implemented — a photo of the role cards, a screenshot of the briefing call invitation, or a coordination log showing the changed process.
What gets checked
- Changes are specific and pre-committed — 'better communication' and 'more appreciation' are not specific changes; 'each volunteer receives a written role card with a defined end time 48 hours before the event' is
- Each change is linked to a specific diagnosis root cause from M1 — changes not connected to the M1 diagnosis may be valuable but do not satisfy the improvement cycle requirement
- Evidence from initiative 3 shows the changes were actually implemented — intent documented before the initiative plus implementation evidence from the initiative satisfies this; intent alone does not
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Change log pre-commitment: check the date on the change log — a log written after initiative 3 describes what was done, not what was pre-committed; pre-commitment is what distinguishes intentional improvement from post-hoc rationalisation
- Change specificity: ask the submitter to explain in one sentence exactly what a volunteer experienced differently in initiative 3 compared to initiative 1 — if they cannot answer specifically, the change is not concrete enough
- Implementation evidence: a screenshot of a briefing call invitation proves the call was scheduled; an attendance record proves it happened; higher-quality evidence means stronger proof the change was experienced by volunteers
- Making changes that address the leader's preference, not the volunteers' experience — switching from email to Slack for the leader's convenience is not a retention improvement unless volunteers identified communication friction as a departure reason
- Documenting changes after initiative 3 to match what happened — the change log is supposed to be pre-committed, not retrofitted; a change log with a date before initiative 3 and implementation evidence from initiative 3 are both required
- Recruiting a different volunteer pool for initiative 3 — retention improvement requires re-engaging people who previously left; if initiative 3 uses entirely new volunteers, no retention comparison is possible
Measure and Report Retention Improvement Across Three Initiatives
1–2 weeks post-initiative 3 for measurement and reflection
The improvement cycle is complete. This milestone captures the before/after comparison: did the specific changes implemented at M2 produce a measurable increase in volunteer return rate? Improvement in retention that cannot be measured is not a proven leadership skill — even a modest improvement, honestly measured and correctly attributed, is stronger evidence than an unmeasured claim of success.
Proof required
Submit: (1) a before/after comparison table — baseline return rate (M1, initiative 1→2) vs. post-change return rate (initiative 2→3 or initiative 1→3, clearly specified), with the calculation shown; (2) for each volunteer who returned for initiative 3 who had not returned for initiative 2, a one-sentence account of what you attribute their return to (specific change, personal conversation, or observation); (3) a 400-word honest assessment: what improved, what did not improve despite your changes, and what you believe would need to change further to increase retention in future initiatives.
What gets checked
- Return rate comparison is calculated correctly and the comparison is valid — the same pool of volunteers must be tracked in both calculations; comparing a smaller baseline pool to a larger post-change pool is not a valid comparison
- Attribution for returning volunteers is based on evidence — what the volunteer said, what the specific change was, or what the leader observed — not general optimism
- Honest assessment addresses both successes and failures — a 400-word assessment that only describes improvement is not honest; what specific change did not produce the expected effect and why?
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Calculation validity: confirm the same volunteer pool is used in both the baseline and post-change calculations; ask the submitter to confirm whether any volunteers in the post-change pool were not in the baseline pool (new recruits who never had the chance to leave do not improve retention metrics)
- Attribution evidence: 'I think X returned because of the role card' is an inference; 'X said they returned because they finally understood what they were committing to before they agreed' is evidence — ask the submitter whether their attributions are based on what volunteers said or on inference
- Honest assessment quality: achieving a 70% return rate (up from 40%) and calling the improvement complete without addressing the remaining 30% is incomplete — the assessment should address what the remaining attrition is attributed to and what, if anything, could address it
- Claiming improvement without showing the calculation — 'retention improved significantly' without a before/after percentage comparison does not satisfy this standard
- Attributing all retention improvement to one change and ignoring confounding factors — if initiative 3 coincided with a different season, a smaller scope, or a more engaged subject matter, these factors should be acknowledged alongside the intended changes
- Declaring the improvement cycle complete without acknowledging remaining gaps — if the initiative 3 return rate is still below 50%, the assessment should address this directly rather than treating a 5-point improvement as a resolved problem