Judges Read For Facts, Not Flowery Language
Judges work with what is written on the form, so plain detail matters more than polished wording. A nomination should name the nominee, describe the act of service and show where the help happened, whether that is a street in Braamfontein, a school in Polokwane or a clinic run in a small town outside Durban.
Good writing helps the panel see the real work. It also helps separate a one off act from steady care that has been part of someone’s life.
- Say what the person did, not only that they are kind.
- Include the place, the people helped and the setting.
- Use dates or time frames if you know them.
- Keep the story clear enough for someone outside the area to understand.
What Counts As Meaningful Impact
Impact does not have to be large to matter. A neighbour who checks on an elderly resident during cold weather, a teacher who buys food for a learner in need, or a volunteer who organises lifts to hospital can all show real community care.
Judges usually look for a link between the action and the effect. If the help made daily life safer, steadier or more dignified, say so plainly. If others noticed the difference, mention that too, but keep it grounded in what actually changed.
- Explain who benefited and how their situation changed.
- Show whether the help was one time or ongoing.
- Note any small but practical result, such as meals, transport or supervision.
- Avoid big claims that cannot be backed up by details.
Authentic Care Shows Up In Ordinary Details
Authenticity usually comes through in the small things. Judges can tell when a nomination reflects lived experience, because the details feel specific and ordinary rather than staged. A person who quietly collects school uniforms in Gauteng, or keeps an informal food parcel system going in a block of flats in Cape Town, leaves a different footprint from someone chasing attention.
That does not mean a nomination must be dramatic. It means the story should sound true to the community that knows the nominee best. Use direct language, and let the facts carry the weight.
- Describe routines, habits or repeated acts of help.
- Include names of community spaces if they are relevant and safe to share.
- Keep praise balanced with actual examples.
- Let the nominee’s care show through real actions, not slogans.
Consent And Privacy Are Part Of The Standard
A nomination should not expose someone who has not agreed to be included. The nominee’s consent matters because the programme handles personal stories, contact details and sometimes sensitive circumstances. If the person is being nominated for work done in a vulnerable setting, think carefully before adding names, photographs or medical details.
Judges need enough information to assess the entry, but not every detail belongs in the form. Our contact form is there for public questions about the process, while the nomination itself should stay focused on what is necessary.
- Get the nominee’s permission before submitting their story where possible.
- Leave out private details that do not help the assessment.
- Share only evidence that supports the nomination.
- Protect children, patients and other vulnerable people from unnecessary exposure.
Evidence That Helps The Panel Read Clearly
Useful evidence gives shape to the nomination without turning it into a file full of loose papers. Short notes, dates, photographs with context and witness details can help, as long as they are relevant. In a community programme, a simple letter from a school, clinic or local group may support the story if it explains what the nominee actually did.
Judges are not looking for the biggest folder. They are looking for proof that the contribution is real and that the account matches what others know.
- Add documents that match the story you wrote.
- Use captions or short notes to explain images.
- Keep screenshots and messages readable.
- Do not overload the form with material that repeats the same point.
A Johannesburg Example Of A Strong Nomination
Picture a nomination from Braamfontein about a neighbour who runs errands for older residents in the building, checks on them during winter and helps them reach nearby services when needed. The strongest version would not just say the person is generous. It would explain which neighbours were helped, what the person did each week and how the support reduced strain for people living alone.
That is the kind of story judges can assess. It is specific, honest and easy to measure against the judging criteria: credible detail, meaningful impact and steady care for others.
- State the role the person plays in everyday life.
- Show how the help is given in practice.
- Link the story to a real community need.
- Keep the focus on service rather than praise.
