Current playbook index title and category plus an internally authored detailed-guide draft
Initiative-specific development wave
How this draft was developed
These sources support general principles for mentoring, skill-sharing, member-led pathways and inclusive participation; they do not constitute Rotary International endorsement of the named Peer Mentoring Groups initiative, the case-clinic method or this locally designed cohort model.
Primary references consulted
Deliver Continued Value(Rotary International) Used for: Rotary identifies mentoring, leadership development and skill-building as ways clubs can provide continuing value.; Cross-generational and interest-based connections can support personal and professional development.
Make Connections(Rotary International) Used for: Rotary encourages clubs to ask what members care about and create opportunities to share skills and ideas.; Member pathways can connect interests with service, leadership and relationships inside and beyond the club.
Enhancing Belonging and Engagement at Rotary(Rotary International) Used for: Rotary values different ideas, experiences, backgrounds, abilities and ways of contributing.; Belonging requires an environment in which a range of members can participate and be heard.
Candidate District material consulted
These records remain draft evidence and still need a human source decision.
Club Playbook - Theme 2 The related Member Mentoring Circles record was used only as a semantic cue for small-group peer learning, monthly guided discussion and mutual support. This Peer Mentoring Groups draft adds a distinct same-stage cohort, case-clinic method, experiment cycle and authority boundary; no source wording or endorsement was inferred.
Theme 2 source-assurance wave
What has been checked
3 current primary pages used by this guide were reopened on 9 August 2026.
6 attributed source claim(s) were mapped to their bounded use in this initiative.
Candidate District material remains separate and does not establish this result.
See each source's scope and limit
Deliver Continued Value Supports: The 49 attributed Theme 2 claims attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping. Does not establish: That the initiative is endorsed by Rotary International or District 9510, that it is permitted by the club's governing documents, that members want it, that it suits the local club, or that it will achieve the intended outcome.
Engaging Younger Professionals: Make Connections Supports: The 32 attributed Theme 2 claims attached to this source, limited to the implementation elements and supporting documents named in each initiative-level claim mapping. Does not establish: That the initiative is endorsed by Rotary International or District 9510, that it is permitted by the club's governing documents, that members want it, that it suits the local club, or that it will achieve the intended outcome.
Enhancing Belonging and Engagement at Rotary Supports: Belonging, accessibility, respectful participation and equitable access principles for renewal and club experience. Does not establish: That a particular meeting model, membership pathway, leadership process or club culture is inclusive without testing with affected people.
What still needs a person to confirm
Confirm the member, prospective-member, past-member and community needs, preferences and consent that the local design assumes.
Confirm which privacy, safeguarding, incorporated-association, charity, work health and safety, food, liquor, copyright, licensing, screening and other duties apply to the club and the activity.
Test accessibility, cultural safety, belonging, language and alternative participation routes with affected people and recognise First Nations cultural authority rather than inferring suitability from the guide.
Confirm every local fact, starting point, cost, role, current service contact, measure, stopping condition and platform capability before the club decides to proceed.
Confirm the authority and current scope of each primary source, resolve login-gated or moved-page references and keep any candidate District material attributed and unapproved until its source decision is made.
The source-verification release gate remains closed.
Checks still on hold
The relevant club owner must approve the cohort's authority boundary and must respond to any system recommendation; the peer group cannot make board or committee decisions.
The club must approve privacy, conflict, complaint, access, referral and record-retention arrangements before real cases are discussed.
Facilitators and peers must not provide unqualified legal, financial, health, safeguarding, employment or counselling advice.
Interclub cohorts require agreement on responsibility for conduct, privacy, complaints, insurance and the handling of recommendations.
Still an internal draft: source interpretation, local suitability, accessibility, governance and editorial approval remain open checks.
Why a club might use this
It helps knowledge, confidence and encouragement move between members instead of resting with a few people.
It may suit: Members seeking guidance or a new challenge, and the people offering practical support.
Use it when
Consider Peer Mentoring Groups when members want guidance or a next challenge but the available pathways are hard to see.
Members taking on comparable project, committee, leadership or engagement challenges who can learn from one another's current practice.
A cohort that wants practical accountability and several peer perspectives rather than a senior mentor or formal training course.
A six- to eight-week trial with four sessions, one small experiment per participant and a closing evidence review.
Before the club starts
One clearly stated shared challenge and a practical outcome that participants can influence within the trial period.
Four to eight voluntary participants at a comparable stage, with power relationships and conflicts of interest checked before the group is confirmed.
A peer-group charter covering privacy, respectful challenge, decision limits, referrals, accessibility, attendance and the end date.
A facilitator who can teach the question-first case-clinic method, manage airtime and distinguish peer ideas from authorised decisions.
Capacity guide
Likely cost
Low; usually limited to coffee, simple materials and coordination time.
Lead time
About three weeks to recruit mentors, map pathways and make the first matches.
People
One coordinator and four to eight mentors, scaled to the number of participating members.
A useful club conversation
Questions worth asking
What have you already tried, what happened and which part of the challenge is actually within your influence?
Which question would help the case owner think differently before the group offers any option or example?
What is the smallest safe experiment you can try before the next session, and what evidence will tell you whether it helped?
Common traps
Trying Peer Mentoring Groups when Confidential complaints, interpersonal conflict, personal crisis, safeguarding or decisions that require an authorised officer, specialist adviser or qualified professional.
Proceeding with Peer Mentoring Groups when Combining members whose roles, power relationships or competing decisions make candid peer discussion unsafe or likely to compromise governance.
The group continues indefinitely and replaces formal support, training or decisions. — Set an end date, close every cycle with a pathway decision and require a new purpose and approval before another cohort begins.
A practical 90-day path
Three milestones for Peer Mentoring Groups
When
What the club does
Evidence to keep
Days 1–30: Agree the local design
Interview likely participants and the relevant club owner to define one shared challenge, what the cohort may decide or test, and what remains outside its authority. Invite an opt-in cohort, check conflicts and access needs privately, and confirm that participants are willing to bring a real current case and act on peer questions.
A challenge brief, authority boundary and intended outcome A confirmed cohort with adjustments and any conflict controls
Days 31–60: Run and adjust the first version
Agree the charter, teach a short case-clinic sequence and let each participant set one measurable practice goal for the six- to eight-week cycle. Run two case-clinic sessions in which the case owner describes the challenge, peers ask clarifying and reflective questions before offering options, and the owner chooses one small experiment.
An acknowledged charter and a private practice goal for every participant Case worksheets, member-chosen experiments and named referral needs
Days 61–90: Review the evidence and decide
Use paired check-ins between sessions to test progress without taking over the work, and escalate any matter beyond the cohort's competence or authority. Review the experiments and evidence, identify what should change in club practice, close the cohort and let participants choose a new group, one-to-one mentor, learning pathway or no further action.
Brief accountability notes and completed referrals A cohort learning note, club response and individual next-pathway decisions
Fit it to the club you have
Small club
Form an interclub cohort around one comparable role, such as incoming project leads, and use a facilitator who is not in the participants' reporting or decision chain.
Larger club
Run role- or challenge-specific cohorts with the same case-clinic method, then synthesise only de-identified system lessons for the board or committee that can act on them.
Regional or rural club
Use a low-bandwidth or telephone-friendly sequence, schedule around travel and seasonal workload, and combine district peers where local numbers or role conflicts are limiting.
Metropolitan, hybrid or online club
Provide accessible materials in advance, use captions and structured turn-taking, offer an asynchronous action check and do not record case discussions.
Learn, adapt and know when to stop
Evidence worth keeping
Participants who bring a real case, choose an experiment and complete at least one peer check-in.
Experiments completed within the cycle and reviewed against evidence chosen by the case owner.
Matters outside the group's authority or competence referred to the correct owner without informal decision-making.
Change course when
Peers give confident advice before understanding the case or the limits of their knowledge. — Use a question-first case-clinic sequence, label suggestions as options and require referral where authority, safeguarding or professional expertise is needed.
Role hierarchy, competition or conflicts of interest make candid discussion unsafe. — Check relationships privately, avoid direct reporting lines where possible and offer a different cohort or one-to-one route without requiring disclosure.
Private examples are repeated outside the group or appear in board reporting. — Keep case detail within the cohort, report only agreed de-identified system lessons and obtain specific permission before attributing any example.
How to put it into practice
Detailed implementation steps for Peer Mentoring Groups
Step
Action
Suggested owner
Timing
Evidence or output
1
Interview likely participants and the relevant club owner to define one shared challenge, what the cohort may decide or test, and what remains outside its authority.
Peer-group coordinator
Three weeks before the first session
A challenge brief, authority boundary and intended outcome
2
Invite an opt-in cohort, check conflicts and access needs privately, and confirm that participants are willing to bring a real current case and act on peer questions.
Peer-group coordinator
Two weeks before the first session
A confirmed cohort with adjustments and any conflict controls
3
Agree the charter, teach a short case-clinic sequence and let each participant set one measurable practice goal for the six- to eight-week cycle.
Facilitator
Session one, 75 minutes
An acknowledged charter and a private practice goal for every participant
4
Run two case-clinic sessions in which the case owner describes the challenge, peers ask clarifying and reflective questions before offering options, and the owner chooses one small experiment.
Rotating case owners with facilitator
Sessions two and three
Case worksheets, member-chosen experiments and named referral needs
5
Use paired check-ins between sessions to test progress without taking over the work, and escalate any matter beyond the cohort's competence or authority.
Peer partners
Between sessions
Brief accountability notes and completed referrals
6
Review the experiments and evidence, identify what should change in club practice, close the cohort and let participants choose a new group, one-to-one mentor, learning pathway or no further action.
Facilitator with relevant club owner
Final session and within seven days
A cohort learning note, club response and individual next-pathway decisions
Controls and safeguards
Check the idea with the people affected and confirm its purpose, owner and practical limits before putting it into use.
Protect member choice and privacy, make participation accessible, and do not infer belonging or satisfaction from attendance alone.
Peers give confident advice before understanding the case or the limits of their knowledge. — Use a question-first case-clinic sequence, label suggestions as options and require referral where authority, safeguarding or professional expertise is needed.
Role hierarchy, competition or conflicts of interest make candid discussion unsafe. — Check relationships privately, avoid direct reporting lines where possible and offer a different cohort or one-to-one route without requiring disclosure.
Private examples are repeated outside the group or appear in board reporting. — Keep case detail within the cohort, report only agreed de-identified system lessons and obtain specific permission before attributing any example.
The group continues indefinitely and replaces formal support, training or decisions. — Set an end date, close every cycle with a pathway decision and require a new purpose and approval before another cohort begins.
The relevant club owner must approve the cohort's authority boundary and must respond to any system recommendation; the peer group cannot make board or committee decisions.
The club must approve privacy, conflict, complaint, access, referral and record-retention arrangements before real cases are discussed.
Facilitators and peers must not provide unqualified legal, financial, health, safeguarding, employment or counselling advice.
Interclub cohorts require agreement on responsibility for conduct, privacy, complaints, insurance and the handling of recommendations.
What to measure
After 90 days, review Peer Mentoring Groups. Look for suitable matches, regular check-ins and progress against goals chosen by the participating member.
Participants who bring a real case, choose an experiment and complete at least one peer check-in.
Experiments completed within the cycle and reviewed against evidence chosen by the case owner.
Matters outside the group's authority or competence referred to the correct owner without informal decision-making.
Participants who choose an appropriate next pathway and club-level lessons that receive a named response after the cohort closes.
Follow-up: At the 90-day review, compare the recorded measures with the starting point, resolve the listed governance holds and tell participants whether Peer Mentoring Groups will change, continue or stop.
Made for this initiative
Tailored supporting documents
These working documents use the decisions, safeguards and evidence needs of this initiative. Complete them with the people affected and keep the agreed version with the club's project record.
01
Peer Mentoring Cohort Charter
Create a safe, time-limited peer-learning agreement with clear authority and referral boundaries.
