The decline in volunteering: what’s behind the statistics
In the latest i-volunteer poll, 87% of respondents agreed that there isn’t a lack of volunteers in the UK, but a lack of capacity within charities to involve them. Perhaps this explains the results of the most recent (2008-09) Citizenship Survey on Volunteering and Charitable Giving , which show a drop in the number of people volunteering. The survey defines ‘regular formal volunteering’ as unpaid help given at lease once a month as part of a group or organisation to benefit others or the environment, and ‘regular informal volunteering’ as unpaid help given at least once a month as an individual to someone who is not a relative. The survey found an overall drop in the numbers of people engaging in both formal and informal volunteering, compared to 2005: the number dropped by 3% in the case of formal volunteering, and by 2% in the case of informal volunteering. (In the case of informal volunteering, though, the number of people aged 50 and above who volunteer has increased.) Employee volunteering has also dropped - from 43% to 35%.
Work commitments and having to look after children/the home were the most common reasons given for not volunteering, but particular groups of people experience particular barriers to volunteering. Those with a long-term illness or disability are less likely to volunteer than those without, some respondents to the survey felt that they were ‘too old’ to volunteer, and people with formal qualifications are twice as likely to formally volunteer than people with none. A more recent report by Volunteering England found that there is a growing reluctance on the part of some organisations to take on unemployed volunteers, for fear that they may return to work and give up their voluntary roles.
When I asked Debbie Usiskin, Vice Chair of the AVM (an independent body set up by and for people who manage volunteers in England) if she thinks that there’s a lack of volunteers she said,
“I do think it is true that people still volunteer mainly because they were asked to do so, so in terms of recruitment alone, organisations that spend time (which is of course money) doing some specific, targeted outreach with specific groups locally are more likely to attract higher numbers of people applying to be volunteers with them.”
Increased bureaucracy may also be a barrier to volunteering. Given that the most cited reason for wanting to volunteer is to improve things and help out others, it can be very frustrating to find that in order to do so there’s a series of checks and vetting that must be got through first. Little wonder, then, that there more people are engaged in informal volunteering than there are in formal volunteering. One respondent to a survey in 2007 said,
‘A lot of what I do is quite spontaneous and part of the reason I enjoy doing it is because it is not full of paperwork.’
Of the respondents to that survey who were not engaged in formal volunteering but were interested in starting, 49% said that the bureaucracy was a deterrent.
Enquiries up, placements down
The findings of the Citizenship Survey do show a marked decline in the number of people taking up volunteering opportunities; what they don’t show is whether or not the number of people wanting to volunteer has increased. And that is exactly what Volunteering England’s report does show - more and more people want to volunteer. During 2009, nearly 90% of Volunteer Centres saw an increase in enquiries about volunteering - some Volunteer Centres reporting 50 - 100% more enquiries than a year a go.
The willing is there on both sides: not only do more people want to volunteers, organisations want to involve more volunteers: 11% of charities have increased their drive for more volunteers.
So if interest in volunteering is on the up, and if organisations are finding a growing need for more volunteers, why does the Citizenship Survey show a decline in the number of volunteer placements? The respondents to the i-volunteer poll voted overwhelmingly that there is a lack of capacity within charities to involve volunteers; is this really the case?
A 2008 survey carried out by the Institute for Volunteering Research (IVR) found that 72% of organisations wanted to involve more volunteers, but given their resources, over half (56%) were able to involve fewer than an additional ten volunteers, and 16% were unable to involve any.
I asked Alan Murray, Head of Volunteering at the RSPB, his opinion:
“From my perspective I suppose it’s about looking at what we mean by the lack of capacity within charities to involve them. This can be very different things for different organisations as it could be lack of funds for expenses, lack of physical space to accommodate volunteers through to lack of time of staff/volunteers to manage any more volunteers.”
Lack of funding for expenses does seem to be an issue. The 2007 survey found that 77% of volunteers received no reimbursement at all for expenses (excluding those who refused reimbursement), and only 7% had all expenses reimbursed. More generally, funding cuts in the sector are taking their toll on Volunteer Centres and organisations looking to recruit volunteers. As the demand for volunteers and for volunteering opportunities increases, the reduction of funding is reducing capacity for volunteer involvement. The Volunteering England report found that not only do organisations lack the time and resources to vet, train, place, manage and supervise volunteers, but many of them are unable to even answer enquiries about volunteering opportunities - running the risk of alienating huge numbers of potential volunteers. In some areas, funding cuts have led to a reduction of staff and resources to support volunteers, and to the closure of a few centres and organisations. And the IVR survey found that 31% of organisations had no funding at all for supporting volunteers.
But it’s not just about time and money - there’s also a limit to the need for volunteers. Although the IVR survey found that, given additional resources, 72% of organisations would involve more volunteers, over 25% of organisations said that they had enough volunteers already, and wouldn’t involve more even with additional resources.
As Alan Murray says,
“There are two key points here:
- There is not a limitless capacity within organisations to involve volunteers. Volunteers should be undertaking roles that contribute to the work/mission of the organisation. It’s a quick road to disaster to take on volunteers and then decide what they can do for you.
- Good volunteer management and identification of appropriate and rewarding/fulfilling roles is down to having good managers of volunteering in place.”
The IVR survey suggests that many organisations are not giving adequate status to volunteer management. 60% of respondents who manage volunteers work full-time, yet only 6% manage volunteers as a full-time occupation. In many cases, ‘managing volunteers’ is not even listed in the job description of those who are actually doing it.
Debbie Usiskin points out,
“Looking at ongoing support, training, and retention of volunteers, I think that organisations that invest in a structure in which to include volunteers, do better at retaining. Of course, many organisations that do not support volunteers properly do retain volunteers who are deeply and personally committed to their aims, unfortunately that means that if it goes wrong (and it sometimes does) those volunteers are more likely to be more upset, and therefore more likely to go externally for some kind of redress.
I do worry that in this economic climate volunteer management, which has never been adequately funded, will be slashed. However, if using financial comparisons to measure the impact of volunteers, I would not be surprised to find that many volunteering departments generate a higher value than the fundraising teams in the same organisations.”
So it seems clear that there is no shortage of willing volunteers in England, despite the barriers that some of them experience. Such barriers can be, and are, tackled by targeted outreach. But, like managing and supervising volunteers, this requires resources that many organisations do not have. With centres and organisations having difficulties coping with existing volunteers, and some even closing down due to lack of funding, it looks like charities are going to face further struggles in their drive to involve volunteers.
Certainly worth reading Joe Saxton's briefing paper that he wrote about how Govt measures volunteering last year (PDF). It refers to the specific guidance that Govt uses in its measures of what constitutes volunteering (here's the PDF). Worth considering also that many volunteers don't self-identify as volunteers which is what @robjackson74 points out above- so rather than assuming there's a bias to overestimating, there may also be an amount of underestimating the figures as well.
There's also the challenge in longitudinal studies and research- where if you change definitions you break the possibility of comparing trends over time. In others words, accepting there are flaws to any definition, there's perhaps more value in being able to compare results over time (even though we're not completely happy with the definitions they use).
Finally, the big one for me is that any number is just a proxy for something else. For example, the reason we're interested in volunteering numbers at all is because we believe it points to something deeper, such as attitudes to volunteering, a productive and healthy society, how well we get on together, etc etc. In other words, rather than putting the emphasis on technical definitions, we should focus our energy on discussing the basis for promoting volunteering in the first place. Clarity on this point will help us to develop a richer and broader range of measures we can use to drive home our points about the value and merit of volunteering.
Just seen this from Joe Saxton at nfp Synergy - it's silly but makes an interesting point in that he is suggesting that informal volunteering should not be counted as such, but should be termed as being a good neighbour about social capital. I don't agree - volunteering is what it is and no amount of dressing it up in terms that mean more to the academics than to the public will change that.
I totally agree @robjackson74, the view that @Alan takes whilst valid, is just one aspect of volunteering. If we view organisational volunteering as the only 'valid' form of involvement then we exclude those that volunteer on their own terms, in many cases beyond the remit of a charity or organisational structure. Social media has already enabled groups of people to mobilise behind issues and causes - eg students lobbying HSBC to change their overdraft fees - which our sector many not consider volunteering but it's still clearly is. Yes there are things to do that charities will always need volunteers for, but equally there are things that people want to do that many necessarily fit with this but are equally as valid. We need to enable these people to take part on their own terms and be open to what motivates them - if the Government's Big Society agenda is to succeed then there is no doubt that we will a big influx of new volunteers.
I think that this is a really interesting discussion. I and others within Red have recently being doing some work around volunteer led groups and a couple of key issues are coming out.
Firstly, for many the volunteer experience is one that enables an individual to move forward from their current situation (as in the case of leading to employment) and as such retention of a volunteer is in fact seen as a negative.
Secondly, these organisations arise out of a belief that there is no-one else out there addressing their particular need. These people know what they want to achieve and have created the opportunities to do so without recourse to an existing organisation. They are highly unlikely to consider themselves volunteers and as such will fall under the radar of traditional forms of measurement.
There is lots I could say on this but I want to focus on one area for now, and that's related to diversity.
We often talk about groups being under-represented in volunteering and, as @JamieT put it, "more people coming forward to volunteer". Yet do we stop to think about this?
First, what we are saying is that certain groups are under-represented in what we (the volunteering establishment) offer and count. That doesn't mean these people don't volunteer, it just means they don't volunteer with us. Many of the so called hard to reach communities have healthy cultures of volunteering, it just doesn't fit what the government and establishment (call it what you will) counts as volunteering.
Second, if we're concerned that not enough people are coming forward to volunteer, are we perhaps putting too much emphasis on people bending to our will? Do we need to focus more on going out and meeting people where they are, then building volunteering opportunities around that to meet mutual needs.
I personally feel that there is a great deal of wrong headedness, sometimes even arrogance, in our movement because we're looking for people to volunteer on our terms and our terms only. I agree with Alan Murray when he says that "There is not a limitless capacity within organisations to involve volunteers. Volunteers should be undertaking roles that contribute to the work/mission of the organisation" but perhaps we need to be more outward looking, more embracing of what volunteering happens outside our establishment bubble, and then we might starts to solve the debate of supply and demand @NatashaPB so helpfully draws attention to.
I see your point @paddaniels but I think we have to be prepared to view an increase in numbers as a key outcome for government investment in volunteering. If we look at the level of investement that has been made since 1997, compared to previous levels of investement, we should have seen a substantial increase in numbers and overal percentage of the population getting involved - surely? Yet numbers point to a decrease in voluntereing which seems absurd to me. Of course how you invest is key - local infrastructure and decent awareness raising campaigns are two areas that have been notably absent beneficieries of funding - but if we get this right then the desired outcome must be more people coming forward to volunteer so that the overall percentage of the population volunteering increases, not remains at the same level with existing volunteers doing more or shwoing a bigger impact for their time.
I totally agree that we need to measure impact beyond just numbers - and here I think social media can play a key role in enabling both volunteers and charities to share their achievements with the world via multi media platforms like i-volunteer - but in my opinion if we expect to continue to see government investment in new and existing areas of infrastructure we must accept that we need to deliver more people into the mix, otherwise what's the point?
Interesting post, thanks Natasha. I think the issue of numbers is going to get bigger as funders focus increasingly on outcomes. The challenge for volunteering is to get past the one measure that's predominant currently: numbers of volunteers. Writer Cory Doctorow talks about measures being proxies for the things we're really interested in but find hard to measure, e.g. counting calories is a proxy for assessing the health benefits of particular foods, GDP is a proxy for economic wellbeing, etc.
I think we've used numbers of volunteers in the same way: amount of volunteers recruited is often really a proxy for understanding if a volunteering programmes meeting a need and delivering impact. But if you stop to think about this- is it really the best measure out there? Would you measure any other organisation or companies effectiveness by how many staff they had on the payroll? It's easy to see why we use volunteer numbers as a proxy: it's clear, understandable and comparable. But I think we need to move beyond volunteer numbers.
Just this week there was this snippet in the FT:
Phillip Blond raised a few eyebrows recently when he claimed
that the number of British people doing voluntary work had
doubled within just a few months.The self-proclaimed “Red Tory”, who shaped much of David
Cameron’s thinking on social policy, was responding to critics
of the prime minister’s “big society” idea.Mr Blond and Mr Cameron believe there is an untapped army of
British do-gooders ready to take over local community tasks –
from dealing with troublesome youths on sink estates to running
schools – which until now have been the province of an
overbearing state.
With volunteering being so high on the political agenda, there's a danger that volunteer numbers become even more of a political football than they have been already. We need to think through alternative measures that are better proxies for demonstrating how volunteering meets all kinds of needs in society and delivers all kinds of amazing results. We need to define efficiency in our own terms. We also need to stand up for the important aspects of volunteering that defy any kind of measure.