March 2004
A Great New Report to Praise, Criticize, and Use
By Susan J. Ellis
Responses for this topic
In February, the Urban Institute released its new study, Volunteer
Management Capacity in America's Charities and Congregations: A Briefing
Report. Everyone is urged to download and read this 34-page
PDF from http://www.nationalservice.org/research/vol_capacity_brief.pdf.
You can also read the press release, containing a summary of the
key finds, at http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/about_usafc/
whats_new/announcements/20040219-1_A.asp.
The study was organized by the UPS Foundation, the Corporation for
National and Community Service, and the USA Freedom Corps and it is
probably the strongest argument I've ever seen in the United States
for the value of – in the words of the report – investment in
volunteer management:
Funders and organizations that invest in
staff volunteer coordinators and training will produce charities and
congregations with a greater capacity to their use of volunteers. This
report finds that investments in volunteer management and benefits
derived from volunteers feed on each other, with investments bringing
benefits and these benefits justify greater investments. We conclude
that the value that volunteers provide to organizations they serve
should make the effective management of volunteers a key priority. (pp.
29-30)
The Briefing Report is well-written and easy to read. But, as with
all studies, there are some questionable assumptions and conclusions.
My favorite saying is that “statistics are like bikinis; they reveal
what is interesting and conceal what is essential.” I'll outline some
of the items I found to praise and to criticize here, and then invite
you to do the same. Even more important, the Urban Institute is asking
for comments directly. As of March 1 they are opening a Web site for
this purpose: www.volunteerinput.org .
I sincerely hope that those of us with a stake in the profession of
volunteer management will make our voices heard.
The Good
Above anything else, we should praise the study's sponsors for asking
these questions about infrastructure. Bravo that the study knew about,
accepted, and built on “best volunteer management practices” and attempted
to learn whether these were widely adopted. The formula to measure
an organization's “Investment in Volunteer Management” is an indicator
that can be replicated.
There is no finding that will surprise any
Energize site visitor, but perhaps it had to be said by those with
more power and influence. As research, the statistical samples and
sources seem strong, and it's wonderful to see someone use the IRS
Form 990 database on this subject. Including faith communities alongside
nonprofit charities is fascinating, too.
Here are a few statements
that really caught my eye. I hope we all quote these in hundreds
of places!
-
The greatest challenges that charities and congregations
face is an inability to dedicate staff resources to and adopt best
practices in volunteer management. (p. 2)
-
Three out of five charities and only one out of three
congregations with social service outreach activities reported having
a paid staff person who worked on volunteer coordination. However,
among these paid volunteer coordinators, one in three have not received
any training in volunteer management, and half spend less than 30
percent of their time on volunteer coordination. (p. 3)
-
Less than half of charities and congregations that
manage volunteers have adopted most volunteer management practices
advocated by the field. (p. 3)
-
Of charities with a paid
staff volunteer manager, only one in eight have someone who devotes
100 percent of his or her time to volunteer management. Only
one congregation in our study said it has a full-time volunteer
coordinator…. (p.
8)
-
Taken together, the findings regarding paid staff
support for management of volunteers point to low professionalization
and capitalization of volunteer administration in the United
States . The fact that many coordinators are getting some
training suggests that many are interested in learning about how
to manage volunteers. However, the small amount of time spent on
volunteer administration suggests that charities and congregations
do not have the resources to allocate to volunteer management or
that they devote their organizational resources primarily to other
efforts. (p. 10)
-
Recruiting volunteers with the right kinds of skills
is a big problem for 18 percent and a small problem for 44 percent
of charities. However, the greater the percentage of time a paid
staff person spends on volunteer administration, the less likely
a charity is to report problems with recruiting. (p. 12)
Let's also credit the researchers for asking comparative questions
about resources put into fundraising (55% of agencies have a paid fundraiser
while only 39% have a paid coordinator of volunteers) and for adding
strong statements about the value of volunteer centers to connect organizations
and potential volunteers.
The Bad
While the broader professional field of volunteer administration is
certainly implied, there is no evidence that the study involved any
representative of it. The absence of references at the end of the report,
whether to organizations such as AVA or Points of Light, to Web sites
such as this one, or to books and journals in the field, continues
the usual practice of keeping such resources invisible or inaccessible
to people who read the study and want to learn more.
Some other things troubled me:
-
Boards of directors
are not included . Not one
word was said in the report to link volunteers who serve on nonprofit
boards of directors to the direct service volunteering studied.
This perpetuates the traditional and counterproductive separation
of such volunteers as somehow inherently “different,” although the principles
of good volunteer management apply equally to gaining the best and
most diverse board (a need that many organizations have). It's interesting
that the report says: “Before undertaking this study, we did not know
the proportion of public charities in the United States that involve
volunteers in their operations” (p. 6). We actually did know
that 100% of them have a board comprised mainly of volunteers,
which makes the finding of “f our in five charities use volunteers ” (p.
6) open to debate.
-
Who's a volunteer? There is no way to
know whether respondents included student interns, stipended
volunteers (such as AmeriCorps), workfare participants, etc. in
any of their answers, nor if they use a varied vocabulary to attract
new volunteers. For example, have those organizations reporting
low numbers of highly-skilled volunteer ever recruited for “donated professional services” or “ pro bono contributions,” rather
than sticking with the V word?
-
Recruitment was studied without correlation to the
vital question of volunteer work design . Problems of recruitment
were presented as due to lack of information and staff time,
although many of us feel that a large part of the problem is
lack of skill in creating meaningful and attractive roles for
a diverse audience of prospective volunteers to do. This is why,
for example, the study says: “We excluded the challenge of ‘too many volunteers' because
we believe it to be different from the other kinds of challenges
considered” (p. 13). To me, any organization claiming “too many” volunteers
has no idea how to put them to work!
-
Though separated statistically, the report implies
that the responses of faith communities can be compared to nonprofit
organizations . This seems to show a lack of understanding
about how congregations operate, particularly the widespread
resistance to “management” vocabulary and theory of any kind as non-spiritual
and out of place in a religious group.
-
Missing entirely are government management practices
in their involvement of volunteers . Although volunteers work
by the thousands in every level of government (just think schools,
parks, prisons, libraries, veterans hospitals, etc.), the public
setting is absent from this study. Once again, government tells
us what to do without applying the same principles to itself. How
many paid and trained volunteer program managers are in government
agencies? Will government commit more funds to building its own
volunteer infrastructure? You won't learn any of the answers from
this study.
As you might expect, I am concerned about the emphasis on volunteers
as an alternative to adequate funding:
A volunteer's time is an important resource for many charities
and congregations, especially those that do not have the
money to hire labor to carry out certain tasks. Volunteer
time is comparable to a monetary donation.
(p. 29)
The assumptions inherent in this section of the report could be a
Hot Topic in itself.
The Ugly
It's hard for me not to question the political reasons for this study
and its conclusions. It seems integrally connected to, as stated, “President
Bush's Call to Service and his mandate that national and community
service programs optimize program design and serve as engines of volunteer
mobilization” (p. 5). That would be fine if the findings were not so
self-serving to benefit both the Corporation for National and Community
Service and the press for more faith-based initiatives.
Most troubling is the conclusion that:
The most popular capacity building option among both charities
and congregations with social service outreach activities is the
addition of a one-year, full-time volunteer with a living stipend
(like an AmeriCorps member), with responsibility for volunteer recruitment
and management. (p. 3)
All this emphasis on the need for a true commitment to volunteer management
and the answer is a one-year volunteer? I guess this proves the adage
of “If all you have is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.” AmeriCorps – just
as so many VISTAs before them – certainly can be enormously helpful
in building agency capacity to involve volunteers. But they are not the
best solution, even with the recognition that they need training in
the subject:
After being trained in volunteer management practices, AmeriCorps
members can be placed in organizations where they can help address
a number of volunteer management challenges. We found that AmeriCorps-type
volunteers could be particularly useful in charities that are challenged
in recruiting enough and the right kinds of volunteers, as well as
in those charities that do not have time or money to train and supervise
volunteers. (p. 31)
Just a few reactions:
-
Why let agencies off the hook from making a long-term commitment
(of funds and attention) to volunteer management?
-
Why
imply that someone fresh out of minimal training in volunteerism
can be effective if no one else in the organization gets additional
training to support them?
-
Who is going to give this training in
volunteer management practices? The Corporation? And who is going
to train them ?
-
Will we really give religious congregations
an AmeriCorps placement to increase their recruiting?
Connection to religiously-affiliated groups was the only external
variable studied in depth, clearly because of the Bush Administration's
emphasis on faith-based service. The findings are presented without
explanation or justification of these questions, and with unsupported
optimism:
…although charities with ties to religious organizations have
greater investment in volunteer management, they also
report more challenges. However, we expect that their
adoption of a greater number and variety of management
practices gives them greater potential for overcoming these challenges. (p.
22)
Using the Report
There is so much good in this report that it should have an impact
beyond its political uses. How can we quibble with the statement:
We conclude that the belief that volunteers are beneficial leads
charities to invest in their management of volunteers, and that investing
in the management of volunteers leads them to value the benefits
of their volunteers more. (p. 20)
Is this not ammunition with which to approach Executive Directors?
Funders? Faculty of nonprofit management courses? Anyone who is resistant
to spending money on – or paying attention to – volunteer involvement?
It is up to us, collectively and individually, to disseminate the highlights
of this study as widely as possible.
What do you think about
the findings?
Read People's
Responses
