Technology & its impact on volunteer management to date

Technology & its impact on volunteer management to date

Bill Gates once said, “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten”. In this new two-part blog series I want to briefly explore how technology has changed volunteer management in the last few years and how it might shape our work in future.

Bill Gates
Bill Gates

An age of wonder

As someone who grew up in the technologically simple days of the 1970s and 1980s, I am often amazed by the modern technological world. The jump has been immense, from the computer games loaded from tape I played as a child to the immersive, Virtual Reality Ultra HD gaming consoles available today. Throughout my life the stuff of science fiction truly has become daily reality.

A young man wearing a VR headset
A young man wearing a VR headset

People are fearful

Yet as technology has become a more integral part of our lives, so people have become more fearful that it will have a negative impact, from the Terminator like annihilation of the human race to machines taking our jobs. Such fears are perhaps inevitable but they certainly aren’t new. Since the industrial revolution people have feared the loss of their livelihoods as machines, computers and technology have become more commonplace.

Letters spelling out the word fear
Letters spelling out the word fear

Some jobs no longer exist

From my own childhood, I can distinctly remember visiting my dad at work in the Bolton branch of Barclays Bank. One of the offices was full of women sitting in rows typing correspondence to customers. No more. Today, that work is done by computers. Those jobs are gone.

A typing pool in the 1970s
A typing pool in the 1970s

Some new jobs have been created

We often forget, however, that as these ‘old’ jobs disappear, new ones are created. For example, fifteen years ago there was no such thing as social media and so no job called Social Media Marketing Manager. Now there are thousands of these jobs around the globe focused on promoting brands, products and services via social media.

A woman working at a laptop
A woman working at a laptop

How volunteer management has changed

Volunteer management hasn’t been immune to these changes. Some of the volunteer roles we once relied upon have become extinct, whilst technology has also helped us do our jobs better. Here are two examples:

  1. Envelope stuffing. This was a crucial role in many Volunteer Involving Organisations when I started work in 1994. Few organisations had access to email, so teams of volunteers would come together to put newsletters and mass mailings into envelopes. It was a great way to get people to try out volunteering in an easily accessible role that allowed for lots of social interaction with other volunteers. Today, thanks to email and software like MailChimp, envelope stuffing has gone the way of the dodo.

    Envelopes
    Envelopes
  2. Volunteer management software. If we occasionally mourn for the loss of roles like envelope stuffing, we rarely mourn the loss of some of the more tedious aspects of volunteer management. Today there are a plethora of software products to help us in our work. These tech tools allow volunteers to keep their details up-to-date, manage their own schedules, engage in basic induction and training activities, and much more. Volunteer Managers are freed from a range of administrative tasks that sucked our time and took us away from the human aspects of our role – engaging with volunteers, paid colleagues and the public. Thanks to technology we can now spend more time on the people parts of our roles and allocate more time to do the strategic thinking and planning so necessary for success.

    Two people talking
    Two people talking

Final thoughts

When Bill Gates spoke of underestimating the change to come in the next ten years, he didn’t mention how easily we forget the changes of the past. We live so much in the moment, and with an eye to what is to come, that we rarely look back. I hope the two examples I have shared I have made the case that technology has changed volunteer management in the last few years because, as we will examine next time, there is plenty more change in store for us in the future.

Over to you

In what ways have you noticed technology changing volunteer management in the last 10-20 years? Have those changes been good or bad in your view? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Advertisements

Is access to volunteering making a comeback in the UK?

In mid-April, Third Sector magazine reported that the UK Parliament’s Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement have, in their new “Ties That Bind” report, recommended creating an Access to Volunteering (A2V) scheme. This would be similar to the existing Access to Work scheme for paid staff.

It is, however, important to recognise that an A2V scheme would not be new.

In 2009, following a recommendation from the Commission on the Future of Volunteering’s Manifesto for Change, the then Labour government ran an Access to Volunteering pilot (which the new Conservative led coalition subsequently scrapped as part of their austerity cuts).

dff7457b-454d-4d6b-9ece3bd8b84cf2dc.jpg

Whilst it’s just a select committee recommendation at the moment, I hope that if the new A2V scheme comes to fruition the government will take the time to read the March 2011 “Evaluation of the Access to Volunteering Fund”. This report outlined the operation, successes and learning from the A2V pilot and noted some key findings, including:

  • An estimated 67% of the disabled people involved in Access to Volunteering funded initiatives were new to volunteering.
  • The Fund has been successful in involving new organisations with no volunteering experience or experience of working with disabled people.
  • The majority of grant recipients were either disability-related or community and welfare organisations, suggesting that Access to Volunteering has not diversified the organisation types involving disabled people in volunteering.
  • The Fund was unsuccessful in attracting very small organisations (average annual income of under £10,000).
  • There is evidence that Access to Volunteering created sustainability amongst organisations that received funding. 25 of the 28 organisations spoken to in the evaluation said that they would continue to support disabled volunteers.
  • Access to Volunteering delivered flexibility by encouraging organisations to apply for funding for a wide range of initiatives specific to their needs and aims.
  • Access to Volunteering has primarily helped organisations remove logistical barriers, such as poor accessibility and lack of specialist equipment.
  • There is evidence to suggest that over time, attitudinal barriers, such as lack of understanding of the ability of disabled people to volunteer, have increasingly been removed.
  • Some funded initiatives implemented highly innovative programmes creating long-term means of overcoming negative attitudes to involving disabled people in volunteering or work, and of encouraging social inclusion.
  • Access to Volunteering has improved the wellbeing of disabled volunteers, helping them to ‘move on’ to a better quality of life.
  • Volunteering increased the confidence and sense of self-worth of the volunteers involved, which impacted positively on employability and health outcomes.
  • Where becoming employable was an aspiration for volunteers, Access to Volunteering developed employability primarily by increasing confidence and providing experience of being in a working environment. 11% of organisations indicated that their volunteers had found employment after taking part in Access to Volunteering.

The select committee’s recommendation to revisit Access to Volunteering is a very welcome and long overdue development. I hope the government heed their call and that any new scheme learns from what went before.

I shall be watching developments with interest.

NB. The evaluation of the A2V pilot is not easy to find. Like so many key documents on volunteering from the last fifteen years, documents that should be available to us all, they seem to have no online home. If you would like a copy of the report please get in touch and I’ll send it to you.

Borderline stupidity

Borderline stupidity

Do volunteers have a place monitoring and securing the UK border? That is the question raised by a new idea under consideration by the UK Government – “Border Force Special Volunteers”.

Border force volunteers?

According to the BBC, who reported this story on 31 December 2017, there are concerns about the UK Border Force’s capacity to cover smaller ports and entry places into the country. An assessment by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, published in July 2017, looked at 62 normally unmanned ports on the east coast and found that Border Force officers had not visited 27 of the sites between April 2015 to June 2016.The report also revealed the number of clandestine migrants detected at the ports had almost doubled in 12 months.

One option under consideration to plug this gap is a scheme similar to the Special Constables, often volunteers who work for Police Forces throughout the UK. The Home Office has said that if it was to introduce volunteers, they would be used to “bolster” Border Force staffing levels and would not be used by Immigration Enforcement.

A UK Border Force employee

In response to these ideas, the Conservative MP for Dover & Deal, Charlie Elphicke, was reported by the BBC as saying, “We can’t have a Dad’s Army-type of set-up”, bringing to mind the much-loved British sitcom about bumbling, incompetent WW2 Home Guard volunteer soldiers.

Mr Elphicke, went on to say that he would:

“Urge great caution before seeking to adopt a model like that used by the police, with special constables. Border security is a skilled job, which takes many years of training.”

There are two things that concern me about this idea which, to stress again, is currently under consideration and not due for immediate implementation.

My first concern

First, I find Mr Elphicke’s remarks astoundingly insulting to volunteers. As a politician, volunteers are essential to Mr Elphicke’s work. They are the ones who knock on doors and beat the streets campaigning for him at election time. He represents a constituency where there is a strong culture of volunteering, where people give of their time to help others and strengthen the community.

Yet Mr Elphicke chooses to caricature volunteers as bumbling, incompetents like those in Dad’s Army. He further suggests that border security is a skilled role and so incompatible with the model used in the Special Constabulary.

I assume the police would disagree with Mr Elphicke’s inference that being a Special Constable is an unskilled role. A quick look at the Kent Police website (Mr Eplhicke’s constituency is in Kent) makes it clear that Specials in the county have to undergo training lasting six to eight months, including 12 days on operational attachments and eight training modules, four of which are two-day weekend sessions. This hardly implies an unskilled role.

Two special constables
Two special constables

My second concern

My second concern is the thinking that developed this idea in the first place. This idea smacks of a ‘volunteers are free / cheap’ mindset.

I’m all for volunteers being involved in significant roles in society. The extent of volunteer involvement in public services in the UK is always vastly underestimated and without volunteer effort many aspects of daily life in the country – such as education, health and social care, coastguard and criminal justice – simply wouldn’t operate in the same way.

Volunteers don’t always complement and supplement paid staff, they can do things paid staff cannot. But I see no evidence of this in the Home Office’s thinking, at least as far as the story about the UK Border Force has been reported. I see no evidence of anyone exploring why volunteers would be the best way to meet the need identified in the July assessment by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

Here are just two questions I’d like an answer to:

  1. What is it that volunteers would bring to these roles that paid staff can’t?
  2. If the money was there, would paid staff be hired rather than volunteers?

Conclusion

What this story illustrates is a likely lack of intelligent thought behind why volunteers should be involved in roles such as the proposed Border Force teams. Perhaps the Home Office should engage some expert support on volunteering to help them think this through? I wonder who might be able to help 😉

The story also highlights the ignorance of an elected official who most likely spouts platitudes about volunteering in his constituency and his parliamentary work but reveals his apparent ignorance in his remarks on this matter. I suggest Mr Elphicke spends some time with volunteers in his constituency to further his education about the importance of their work to this country.

Three things I said to look for in 2017 and what happened

Three things I said to look for in 2017 and what happened

In January last year I wrote a blog post sharing my thoughts on three things to look for in UK volunteering in 2017. They were:

  1. The review of the flagship National Citizens Service (NCS) scheme
  2. A predicted boom in online volunteering
  3. The Westminster government review into full-time social action (aka volunteering)

So, what happened?


NCS review

The review, conducted by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), reported in March 2017 and did not make comfortable reading. As Civil Society reported:

“An influential committee of MPs has published a highly critical report into the National Citizen Service, and its chair has called on government to carry out a fundamental review before spending any money on the programme.”

The full PAC report can be accessed here. Whilst they acknowledge progress since NCS started in 2011, the committee found that:

  • Work is required if National Citizen Service is to become a sustainable investment in young people.
  • The programme “may no longer be justifiable” if it is unable to meet its targets for increasing the number of participants, or achieve its long-term societal aims – both at a cheaper cost per head – noting that the NCS Trust and DCMS cannot justify the “seemingly high” cost per participant.
  • The Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), which has overall responsibility for NCS, lacks the data to measure long-term outcomes of the programme or understand what works.
  • The NCS Trust paid providers some £10 million in 2016 for places that were not filled and expresses disappointment at the Trust’s “relaxed attitude about the non-recovery of these funds”.
  • There were concerns about the transparency and governance of the Trust, and finds it is “unclear” whether the Trust has the skills and experience necessary to oversee growth of the NCS programme.

Michael Lynas, Chief Executive of the NCS Trust was reported in Civil Society as saying:

“We are considering all the recommendations in this report carefully and will work closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and our other partners to deliver them and make NCS a normal part of growing up for young people in our country.”

Despite all this NCS continues apace and received Royal Charter status during the year. I wonder if any other body receiving over £1billion of public money would get away as lightly as NCS seems to have done last year?

(NB – in the interests of fairness it should be noted that coverage of a recent report into the value for money of NCS has suggested the scheme is moving in a positive direction).

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/ncs-evaluation-shows-value-for-money-greater-than-cost.html?utm_source=Civil+Society+News+List&utm_campaign=fa2a2453eb-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_26f393b813-fa2a2453eb-86512773


A boom in online volunteering?

Towards the end for 2016, Vicki Sellick, Director of Nesta’s innovation lab, wrote:

”My prediction is that 2017 might just be the year of micro-volunteering and data donation, with cheap technologies allowing everyone to volunteer from home for short and sweet periods of time, no matter how much time they have to give.”

Well, I have seen no evidence that online and microvolunteering has boomed this year. Personally, I’ve come across just as many volunteer managers in 2017 who face significant challenges in developing their volunteering offers to fit microvolunteering models or embrace online technologies.

As long as organisations continue to underinvest in volunteer engagement this will continue. Leaders of volunteers are largely enthusiastic about utilising technology to innovate and develop the work of volunteers. The problem is they consistently come up against boards and senior managers who don’t understand the modern realities of volunteering and fail to resource this essential work adequately. That, coupled with many organisations practising risk avoidance as they live in fear of technologies they don’t understand, is causing much frustration amongst leaders of volunteers.

All that said, I’d be happy to stand corrected if independent data can be produced to show that online volunteering has boomed in 2017. I think I’ll be waiting for a while though as our most reliable volunteer data, The Community Life Survey, changed methodology recently and so is no longer trackable with data produced since 2001. That and it never asked specifically about online volunteering anyway!


Review into full-time social action

This review, much touted at the start of 2017, finally got underway in September after delays resulting from the Prime Minister calling June’s snap general election.

The call for evidence closed on 13 October and the review panel are analysing the feedback they received. I would anticipate a final report sometime in early 2018.

Until then, I commend to you NCVO’s thoughtful responseto the review’s call for evidence. This sums up many of my own thoughts about the review and I wait with interest to see what recommendations will result from the panels work.


So, there you have it. Three interesting issues during 2017 and what actually happened (or didn’t). What were your volunteering highlights of 2017 and what are you looking forward to in 2018? Share your thoughts below.

Who is our enemy?

Who is our enemy?

I often find writing hard. Sometimes the words flow freely and easily, sometimes there is a topic I want to address but I just can’t find the right way into it, and other times I just sit and stare at a blinking cursor wondering what I can say that will be helpful to others.

This is commonly called writer’s block. American author Anne Lamott has some helpful words of advice when we encounter it:

“Writer’s block isn’t a block. When your wife locks you out of the house you don’t have a problem with the door! The problem is acceptance. Accept you are empty.”

When I feel empty like that – empty of inspiration, empty of energy, empty of words – I read, often books and articles that have nothing to do with volunteering, like the Originals book I reviewed in my last posting.

Two of the places I go for inspiration are For The Interested by Josh Spector and the weekly newsletter from Charles Chu. In his recent article, “Feeling Lost? Maybe You Need An Enemy”, Charles explores how having an adversary to focus on can be a uniting force. That got me thinking. Who is our enemy, the nemesis of leaders and managers of volunteers?

  • Is it governments, who consistently fail to understand volunteering and what is needed to make it happen?
  • Is it fundraisers, who are so focused on getting in the cash they fail to see the potential of people?
  • Is it CEOs and senior managers, who consistently ignore us, cut our posts first when times get tough and take advantage of volunteers?

Whoever we may consider our enemy to be – and perhaps this is the first time you’ve even considered that person or institution to be an enemy – Charles Chu has a challenge for us in this quote from the late Umberto Eco:

“Having an enemy is important not only to define our identity but also to provide us with an obstacle against which to measure our system of values and, in seeking to overcome it, to demonstrate our own worth. So when there is no enemy, we have to invent one.”

Charles continues:

“This enemy I am fighting  – the enemies we all fight  –  could they…simply be fake enemies that we’ve “invented” to satisfy our own needs? However scary it is, we should also pause and ask ourselves, “Does this enemy that I fight truly exist? And, if not, then what is it that I’ve been doing this all for?”

Are CEOs, fundraisers and governments really the enemy of leaders of volunteers? Have we invented them as adversaries so we have a common cause to unite behind? Are we rallying against a group, body or individual in order to demonstrate our own worth (as Umberto Eco put it)? Is this all just a convenient way for us to blame others for our frustrations rather than do something about them ourselves? What if we stopped viewing them as enemies? What if we stopped blaming others for our lack of progress, whether personally or as a profession, and started viewing them as potential allies?

Back to Charles Chu again:

“Those we make enemies out of are, in the end, still people. Deep down, they suffer from many of the same fears and worries. If we take the time to see the world as they do, it becomes a whole lot harder to hate them.”

Just spend a few moments reflecting on the following questions, either in regard to your personally and what you are trying to achieve as a manager of volunteers, or as our wider profession:

  • Who do we see as our enemy?
  • Why are they our enemy?
  • Have we invented that enemy or are they real?
  • How can I see the world as my enemy does and how might that help me achieve my goal?
  • What might I be avoiding doing because I’m blaming someone else for my challenges?
  • What action would help me take control of the situation and move forward instead of blaming someone else?

I hope that through tackling my writers block I’ve produced something that’s got you thinking. I also hope it inspires you write too, in the form of a response by leaving a comment below.

I’d love to know what you think.

Is it time to include young people in national research on volunteering?

When we only collect national data on volunteering by adults we fail to capture so much rich information on the wonderful efforts of young people.

Volunteer Scotland have recently published data which shows a significant increase in volunteering by young people. They have discovered that fifty-two per cent of Scots aged 11-18 years old volunteer, nearly double the adult figure of 27%.

The Scottish data is in line with findings from NCVO in 2016. Based on the Westminster government’s Community Life Survey, they found that:

“In 2010/11, 23% of 16-24 year olds said they volunteered formally (ie through a group or organisation of some kind) at least once a month. By 2014/15 that figure was 35%. That’s a 52% increase, and in real terms it would mean around one million more young volunteers.”

The situation is pretty clear. Young people are getting stuck into volunteering (often referred to with the sexier sounding term, ‘social action’) in a big way.

Which leads me to a question.

Why do most countries that collect data on volunteering rates only count adults?

So many studies only look at people aged eighteen or over, sixteen at a push. There are a few notable exceptions I am aware of. New Zealand counts volunteering by people aged ten or above and German colleague Ina Wittmeier recently told me that:

“The German volunteer survey is also asking people from 14 years up.

It states that the youth has different motives and different ways into volunteering.”

Isn’t there a real danger that we are not only massively under-counting the number of volunteers by only capturing data on adults?

Also, by ignoring those aged under 16 or 18 years, we are failing to understand their motivations properly. This will make us less likely to adapt our volunteer opportunities to engage young people effectively.

So, here are some questions for you:

  • Does your country count volunteering by people under the age of 18?
  • If it does, what is the lowest age counted?
  • If it doesn’t, why not? Is there a good reason?
  • Do you agree that we should be collecting data on volunteering by those under 16 / 18 years of age when our countries conduct national research into volunteering?
  • What lessons do you think we could be missing out on by not properly understanding young peoples’ desire to give time?

Over to you. Tell us what you think.