What the review stage is meant to do
The review stage is where a nomination is checked before it is taken forward. The aim is to make sure the details are usable, the nominee has given consent where needed, and the story matches the programme’s community focus.
This is not a popularity count and it is not a race to the nearest loud voice. A strong nomination gives a clear account of what the person does, who benefits, and what makes the contribution meaningful in real life.
- Checks that the nominee fits the community-helping brief
- Confirms that names, places and events are described clearly
- Looks for consent notes where personal information is included
- Flags missing details that would weaken fair review
How a nomination moves through the queue
Once a nomination is submitted, it is first grouped by province and by the kind of help described. A teacher, a carer, a first responder and a neighbour who steps in may all need slightly different context, so the review team sorts the material before it is assessed for fairness.
From there, the nomination is read against the programme brief and its practical criteria. The team looks for usable evidence, a clear connection to community benefit, and enough detail to understand the nominee’s role without inflating the story.
- Initial sorting by province and nomination type
- Read-through for clarity, consent and completeness
- Group comparison so similar nominations are treated consistently
- Escalation of sensitive or unclear entries for careful handling
What makes a stronger nomination file
A good nomination gives more than praise. It should say what was done, where the help happened, how often the nominee shows up, and what changed for the people around them. Even a short story can be useful if it is specific and honest.
Evidence does not need to be dramatic. A school note, community reference, message trail, photo with context, or a plain account from someone directly affected can all help, provided the details are relevant and the nominee has consented to the use of personal information.
- Specific actions are clearer than general compliments
- Direct witness detail helps the review team compare entries
- Relevant evidence should match the story being told
- Consent matters when names, images or private facts appear
Fairness checks and judging filters
Fairness starts with applying the same practical filters to every file. The review process looks for eligibility, relevance, and enough support for the claims made. If two nominations describe similar acts of service, the team reads them using the same criteria rather than treating one as more important because it is louder or longer.
Some entries may need extra care because they mention children, health matters, trauma or local disputes. Those details are not ignored, but they are handled with restraint. Where a nomination lacks consent or includes unnecessary private detail, it may be held back, edited for privacy, or marked for clarification.
- Eligibility is checked before comparison begins
- Private or sensitive facts are limited to what is needed
- Similar nominations are grouped for steadier comparison
- Unclear claims are separated from well-supported ones
Turnaround, scope and pricing approach
Review timing depends on the size of the nomination intake and the amount of checking each file needs. A single clear entry is different from a bundle of nominations with consent queries, missing evidence or sensitive notes. The process is handled in practical stages so the queue can be read properly.
Pricing is quoted according to the programme scope, the number of nominations, the amount of admin needed and any extra privacy handling required. There is no standard price, because a small public call and a larger province-wide intake do not carry the same workload.
- Scope can cover one province or several provinces
- Pricing depends on volume and review complexity
- Privacy handling may affect admin work
- Public-facing wording can be checked for clarity too
Aftercare after the review pass
After a nomination has been reviewed, the team may keep it in the correct group, move it into a different category, or set it aside if it does not meet the programme brief. Where a nomination needs a small correction, the file can be updated with the right detail before it is considered further.
Aftercare also means keeping the nominee’s information in line with the consent given. If a family member, neighbour or colleague submitted the nomination, the privacy record still matters. That helps the programme protect personal details while keeping the community story intact.
- Files may be grouped, corrected or held back
- Consent records stay attached to the nomination
- Privacy notes are kept with the review record
- Updated details are used only where appropriate
Key facts
| Service | Review Process |
|---|---|
| Coverage | Public nominations across South Africa |
| Base | Braamfontein, Johannesburg |
| Focus | Fair checking, grouping and consideration |
| Main checks | Eligibility, consent, evidence, privacy |
| Contact method | our contact form |
