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 community-informed projects, evaluation, lessons, privacy and Indigenous authority; they are not an endorsement of the named Rotary Impact Map, verification of any local outcome or authority to publish a place, person, partner, cultural knowledge or impact claim.
Primary references consulted
Develop projects(Rotary International) Used for: Rotary's project lifecycle connects community-informed design, goal tracking, implementation, evaluation, promotion and sharing lessons learned.
Four questions about community assessments(Rotary International) Used for: Community assessment can reveal priorities different from a club's initial assumptions and can materially change project design; this is contextual evidence, not approval of a local map.
De-identification and the Privacy Act(Office of the Australian Information Commissioner) Used for: De-identification is contextual and requires the risk of re-identification to be very low in the relevant release or access environment.
AIATSIS Guide to applying the Code of Ethics(Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) Used for: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people must lead decisions involving their knowledge, communities and cultural material, including how information is represented and shared.
Candidate District material consulted
These records remain draft evidence and still need a human source decision.
Club Playbook - Theme 2 Related candidate records 71 Member Milestone Map, 75 Service in Action Reel and 86 Rotary Through My Eyes Gallery concern visualising people, service and experience. None is a literal Rotary Impact Map record or supplies this guide's community-priority, outcome-evidence, attribution, sensitive-location, partner-authority and planning-decision controls.
Theme 2 source-assurance wave
What has been checked
4 current primary pages used by this guide were reopened on 9 August 2026.
4 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
Develop projects Supports: The 5 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.
Rotary Community Corps Supports: The 11 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.
De-identification and the Privacy Act Supports: The 4 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: Whether the Privacy Act or another duty applies to this club, whether consent is informed and valid, whether collection or publication is authorised, or whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient in the actual circumstances.
AIATSIS Guide to applying the Code of Ethics Supports: The 8 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: Accessibility or inclusion conformance, the needs or preferences of any person or community, cultural authority to act, the suitability of a format or venue, or local approval.
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 board must approve the map's decision purpose, definitions, evidence scale, sensitive-data rules, partner-authority process, public formats and update owner.
No grant, finance, beneficiary, safeguarding, health, cultural, security or personal information may be exposed through a point, image, filter, download or linked source.
Partners and communities must be able to correct or decline their representation, and contested claims must not be simplified into a promotional map entry.
The map must not be represented as an evaluation by Rotary International or as proof of causation beyond the evidence and attribution recorded.
Still an internal draft: source interpretation, local suitability, accessibility, governance and editorial approval remain open checks.
Why a club might use this
It helps more people feel known, valued and able to take part in ways that work for them.
It may suit: Members at the relevant stage of their club experience, including people who may not yet feel fully connected.
Use it when
Consider Rotary Impact Map when the club's identity is unclear, contested or expressed more strongly in words than in member experience.
A club with service records spread across reports, photographs and members' memories and no clear view of how projects connect over time.
A map built with community partners that distinguishes need, activity, contribution, outcome, evidence confidence and continuing responsibility.
A club ready to let missing, mixed or inconvenient evidence shape priorities instead of using the map only to promote success.
Before the club starts
A named decision the map must support, a defined time period and geography, and a data dictionary separating activity, output, outcome, contribution and evidence confidence.
A project inventory linked to original plans, budgets, monitoring, evaluations, partner records and follow-up commitments rather than reconstructed from publicity alone.
Partner authority to validate descriptions and public use, with a cultural and privacy screen for locations, people, images and community knowledge.
An accessible non-map alternative, an evidence and corrections route, a responsible data custodian and board agreement on publication and review boundaries.
Capacity guide
Likely cost
Low to medium; allow for facilitation, accessible workshop materials and refreshments.
Lead time
Four to six weeks from story gathering to an agreed working charter.
People
Five to eight people representing different tenures, roles and participation patterns.
A useful club conversation
Questions worth asking
Which mapped points show a verified community outcome, and which currently show only that the club was active?
Whose account, contribution or continuing responsibility is missing from the way this project is represented?
What pattern or gap should change the next service decision, relationship investment or evidence practice?
Common traps
Trying Rotary Impact Map when A pin map of every cheque, working bee or meeting, a leaderboard of communities served or a claim that Rotary caused every observed change.
Proceeding with Rotary Impact Map when Publishing precise locations, identities, culturally sensitive knowledge or partner information when disclosure could create harm or breach an agreement.
A visually impressive map is inaccessible or never influences a club decision. — Provide equivalent text and print evidence, user-test all formats and require a recorded planning decision and annual update owner.
A practical 90-day path
Three milestones for Rotary Impact Map
When
What the club does
Evidence to keep
Days 1–30: Agree the local design
Define the decision, audience, period, geography and minimum evidence standard, then write the data dictionary and rules for excluding or generalising sensitive locations. Inventory projects and relationships from original records, capturing community priority, partner role, club contribution, resources, intended outcome, actual evidence and outstanding commitment.
An impact-map brief and data standard A project, relationship and evidence register
Days 31–60: Run and adjust the first version
Ask partners and affected communities to correct the account, describe what changed from their perspective, set attribution and publication conditions and identify what remains unresolved. Classify evidence confidence, remove duplicate or promotional claims, generalise sensitive locations and create separate map layers for activity, credible outcome, relationship and open commitment.
A community-validated account and authority log A controlled map dataset and limitations statement
Days 61–90: Review the evidence and decide
Test the interactive, print and text versions with members, partners and people using assistive technology, then correct comprehension, access, privacy and attribution problems before approval. Use the approved map in a service-planning session, record the priorities and relationships it changes, assign data updates and report corrections and open commitments at least annually.
Tested map and equivalent evidence table A map-informed service decision and update cycle
Fit it to the club you have
Small club
Start with one service area or five recent projects and use a simple printed map plus evidence table; prioritise verification and partner conversation over digital features.
Larger club
Assign data owners by service portfolio, use one controlled dictionary and evidence scale, and prevent separate committees from publishing incompatible outcome claims or location data.
Regional or rural club
Use broader geographic areas where a pin could identify a person or small community, make telephone and paper validation available and account for travel, season and service-access realities.
Metropolitan, hybrid or online club
Provide a keyboard-accessible map, filterable text table, meaningful location descriptions and downloadable version, with the same evidence and limitations available in every format.
Learn, adapt and know when to stop
Evidence worth keeping
Every published project entry records the community priority, partner role, club contribution, evidence confidence, publication authority and any open commitment.
Partners validate or amend the entries that concern them, with declined, pending and contested accounts visible in the controlled record.
Interactive, print and text versions pass accessibility and comprehension testing and disclose limitations without requiring a user to interpret colour or pins alone.
Change course when
The map equates activity with impact and attributes community change wholly to the club. — Use a defined evidence scale, separate activity from outcome and record partner and community contributions beside Rotary's contribution.
A precise pin, image or description identifies a vulnerable person, sensitive service or culturally restricted place. — Screen every field, generalise or suppress locations, seek responsible authority and publish the least detail needed for the decision.
Older well-documented projects dominate while newer, smaller or community-led work disappears. — Report evidence and archive gaps explicitly, invite partner corrections and avoid treating missing club records as evidence that no impact occurred.
How to put it into practice
Detailed implementation steps for Rotary Impact Map
Step
Action
Suggested owner
Timing
Evidence or output
1
Define the decision, audience, period, geography and minimum evidence standard, then write the data dictionary and rules for excluding or generalising sensitive locations.
Service director and evidence lead
Before collecting data
An impact-map brief and data standard
2
Inventory projects and relationships from original records, capturing community priority, partner role, club contribution, resources, intended outcome, actual evidence and outstanding commitment.
Project record team
Weeks one to four
A project, relationship and evidence register
3
Ask partners and affected communities to correct the account, describe what changed from their perspective, set attribution and publication conditions and identify what remains unresolved.
Partner relationship leads
Weeks three to six
A community-validated account and authority log
4
Classify evidence confidence, remove duplicate or promotional claims, generalise sensitive locations and create separate map layers for activity, credible outcome, relationship and open commitment.
Evidence reviewer and map producer
Weeks six to eight
A controlled map dataset and limitations statement
5
Test the interactive, print and text versions with members, partners and people using assistive technology, then correct comprehension, access, privacy and attribution problems before approval.
Accessibility and partner reviewers
Before publication
Tested map and equivalent evidence table
6
Use the approved map in a service-planning session, record the priorities and relationships it changes, assign data updates and report corrections and open commitments at least annually.
Board and service committee
At planning and annually
A map-informed service decision and update cycle
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.
The map equates activity with impact and attributes community change wholly to the club. — Use a defined evidence scale, separate activity from outcome and record partner and community contributions beside Rotary's contribution.
A precise pin, image or description identifies a vulnerable person, sensitive service or culturally restricted place. — Screen every field, generalise or suppress locations, seek responsible authority and publish the least detail needed for the decision.
Older well-documented projects dominate while newer, smaller or community-led work disappears. — Report evidence and archive gaps explicitly, invite partner corrections and avoid treating missing club records as evidence that no impact occurred.
A visually impressive map is inaccessible or never influences a club decision. — Provide equivalent text and print evidence, user-test all formats and require a recorded planning decision and annual update owner.
The board must approve the map's decision purpose, definitions, evidence scale, sensitive-data rules, partner-authority process, public formats and update owner.
No grant, finance, beneficiary, safeguarding, health, cultural, security or personal information may be exposed through a point, image, filter, download or linked source.
Partners and communities must be able to correct or decline their representation, and contested claims must not be simplified into a promotional map entry.
The map must not be represented as an evaluation by Rotary International or as proof of causation beyond the evidence and attribution recorded.
What to measure
After 90 days, review Rotary Impact Map. Look for members being able to describe the club's shared character and for agreed behaviours appearing consistently in meetings, service and decisions.
Every published project entry records the community priority, partner role, club contribution, evidence confidence, publication authority and any open commitment.
Partners validate or amend the entries that concern them, with declined, pending and contested accounts visible in the controlled record.
Interactive, print and text versions pass accessibility and comprehension testing and disclose limitations without requiring a user to interpret colour or pins alone.
The board records at least one service, partnership, evidence or resource decision influenced by the map and reviews progress against it.
Follow-up: At the 90-day review, compare the recorded measures with the starting point, resolve the listed governance holds and tell participants whether Rotary Impact Map 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
Impact Map Purpose and Data Standard
Define the decision, evidence threshold and publication limits before mapping begins.
