Safety model
Public enough to evaluate, private enough to protect people.
The safest volunteer matching system makes boundaries visible: who is verified, what data is public, what stays private, and how concerns get reviewed.
Boundary
Separate public signal from private contact
Profiles and postings should be useful without revealing exact home addresses, raw reports, credentials, or unnecessary personal data.
Verification
Mark confidence clearly
Reviewed organizations, domain/EIN references, and open-source project checks should be visible without overstating guarantees.
Review
Give reports a route
Concerns need a clear form, the referenced record, audit context, and a moderation outcome.
Public-safe information
Cause areas, skills, broad availability, public links, organization type, verification state, deliverables, acceptance criteria, and public screening notes can help users decide what to do next.
- Use broad locations unless exact site details are necessary.
- Use public artifact links only.
- Use text badges so status is not color-only.
Private or restricted information
Private emails, phone numbers, exact home addresses, credentials, raw background checks, government IDs, private files, and unreviewed internal notes should not be public browsing content.
- Applications are private records.
- Reports are private moderation records.
- Screening belongs in consent-based provider workflows.
Reporting closes the loop
Every opportunity and organization surface includes a concern path. Reports capture reason, details, reporter context when provided, and the referenced entity for moderator review.
- Privacy leak
- Misleading scope
- Safety or eligibility issue
Key terms
- Unverified
- The organization can be visible, but users should read the post carefully and stewards may apply limits.
- Pending review
- The organization has supplied enough signal for review but is not fully verified yet.