What the judging panel looks for in a nomination
A strong nomination gives a clear picture of ordinary service that has made a real difference. The panel looks for impact first, then consistency, initiative and care for others. A single good deed can matter, but repeated effort, local understanding and practical help usually make the story stronger.
We read each nomination as a full account, not as a slogan. The details matter: who was helped, what was done, where it happened, and how the nominee kept showing up. If a nomination only says someone is kind, that is not enough. The best entries explain the action, the setting and the effect in plain language.
- Show what the nominee actually did
- Explain who benefited and how
- Include dates or a general time frame where possible
- Use clear, honest wording instead of praise without proof
How impact, consistency and initiative are weighed
Impact is about the difference made to a person, a group or a neighbourhood. Consistency looks at whether the nominee helps once or keeps stepping in when the need is there. Initiative matters when someone notices a problem and acts before being asked. Care for others shows in the way they treat people, especially in difficult or stressful moments.
These points are not marked as a rigid score sheet on the page, but they guide the review. A teacher who spends extra time helping learners, a neighbour who organises support for an elderly resident, or a first responder who stays calm during a crisis may all be considered on the same plain standards. Context matters too, because a small action in a tight community can carry more weight than it first appears.
- Impact: the change or help that can be shown
- Consistency: repeated action over time
- Initiative: stepping in without being pushed
- Care: respect, patience and human attention
Evidence that strengthens the story
Useful evidence helps the review team separate a strong community story from a vague claim. Evidence can be simple. A short written account from the nominator, a note from someone who received help, or details from a community group can all help. Photos may be useful too, as long as they are relevant and do not expose private information that should stay private.
We do not ask for a pile of paperwork. What matters is that the nomination makes sense and can be read with confidence. If an award story mentions a food drive, clean-up effort or support visit, the nomination should show who organised it, where it happened and what role the nominee played. That keeps the submission carefull and grounded.
- Clear description of the nominee’s role
- Specific examples rather than general praise
- Optional supporting notes from witnesses or beneficiaries
- Relevant images only, with privacy in mind
Consent, privacy and sensitive details
Before any nomination is assessed, the nominee’s consent must be in place unless the category rules state otherwise. This is important because recognition is public-facing and not every person wants their name shared in the same way. Consent should be practical and informed, not guessed at after the fact.
Privacy is handled with care, especially where a nominee works with children, vulnerable people or sensitive community matters. We avoid unnecessary personal details and only keep what is needed for the programme. If a story involves medical, safety or family matters, keep the wording modest and respectful. Do not include private records unless they are required and allowed in the nomination flow.
- Get permission before naming the nominee
- Do not include more personal detail than needed
- Keep sensitive community matters tightly worded
- Use our contact form for privacy-related questions
What the review process covers from submission to decision
Once a nomination is submitted, it is checked for completeness, consent and basic eligibility. From there, the judging process coordinator and nominations team review the story against the published criteria. The aim is to keep the process fair, readable and consistent across provinces, whether the nomination comes from Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Gqeberha or Polokwane.
If a nomination is missing something important, the team may ask for an update through the normal programme process. That could mean clearer evidence, a corrected name, or a better explanation of the nominee’s role. We do not invent details to make a story fit. What matters is that the final record matches what was actually submitted.
- Eligibility and consent are checked first
- Story quality is reviewed for clarity
- Evidence is read against the claim made
- Private details are limited to what is needed
Pricing, support and what happens after review
The judging criteria page sits inside a public awards programme, so the focus is on assessment rather than selling a package. Where any administrative charge applies, it is disclosed through the nomination route before submission. We do not add hidden extras or awkward add-on costs. Support after submission is about guidance, updates and privacy handling, not pressure.
After the review, the nomination record stays aligned with the process used by the programme. If a nomination needs correction, the team can handle it through the normal update route. If a question arises about consent, confidentiality or the wording of a story, that is treated as part of the same submission record. The work is administrative, careful and plain, with no drama.
- Assessment follows the published criteria only
- Any fee details are disclosed before submission where relevant
- Updates are handled through the nomination record
- Privacy queries stay tied to the original nomination
Key facts
| Judging focus | Impact, consistency, initiative and care for others |
|---|---|
| Submission type | Public nominations from across South Africa |
| Consent check | Required before public-facing consideration |
| Privacy handling | Sensitive details are limited and reviewed carefully |
| Support route | our contact form on the contact page |
| Programme base | Braamfontein, Johannesburg |
