What's in a word? Revisited

In November 2013 I wrote a blog post entitled “What’s in a word?” looking at the language we use regarding volunteering. I specifically picked out issues concerning microvolunteering and internships, the latter being especially critical.

As I said at the time:

First, by colluding with the idea that internship sounds more professional than volunteering we collude with the devaluing of volunteering, subordinating it to a lower class status below real work (i.e. paid) and internships. Second, we open up a can of worms such as that created by the recent debates on unpaid internships which - and let’s not ignore this at all - risk fundamentally undermining the concepts of volunteering many of us hold so dear.

This blog post built upon some writing I’d done earlier that year.

In June 2013, Jo Swinson MP commented in a parliamentary debate on interns that:

“…basically, if someone is offering their time of their own free will and they can come and go as they please, they are a volunteer, but if they are required to perform specific tasks and can be disciplined if duties are not performed as agreed, they are a worker.”

As I said in my blog for Third Sector a couple of months later:

“So a volunteer shouldn’t do specific tasks or be held to account if they don’t do a good job? Really? Is that actually how we want to think about volunteers: people doing meaningless work that makes no contribution of any value to society whatsoever? So much for volunteers making a difference.”

Why this brief history lesson? Because the issue of the language we use to describe volunteering has arisen once more and this time through a term that many leaders and managers of volunteers seem to have been happy to adopt: ‘skilled volunteering’.

The term ‘skilled volunteering’ has been around for a short while now and generally refers to people using their professional skills to help a good cause[1]. It is in effect what many people have usually referred to as pro bono:

“Professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment or at a reduced fee as a public service. Unlike traditional volunteerism, it is service that uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them”. (Source - Wikipedia).

I’ve always had an issue with using language that omits the word volunteer to describe volunteering that requires particular skills or competence. Why draw a distinction between employees using their professional skills pro bono and someone who may be a retired professional from the same field using exactly the same skills who is only seen as a volunteer?

On the face of it then ‘skilled volunteering’ is not a bad term because at it least recognises that the people who use their considerable skills and expertise to further a good cause are indeed volunteers.

Yet for that step forwards, the term ‘skilled volunteering’ creates a huge jump backwards.

You see, as it becomes more common to refer to employee volunteers using professional skills as skilled volunteers, so we increasingly imply that all other volunteers are unskilled - nice-to-have, non-essential contributors who don’t do anything of real value in the organisation. It’s bad enough that so many people already hold this erroneous and misleading view of volunteers without introducing new terminology that perpetuates that belief further.

So, leaders and managers of volunteers please unite against the term ‘skilled volunteering’ as a means of distinguishing between different forms of giving time. All volunteering requires some skill and competence, all volunteering is ‘skilled volunteering’ in some way.

If you feel you have to use the word skilled at all when describing volunteering, then consider the compromise term of ‘skills-based volunteering’ which Corey Diamond of Realized Worth helpfully explains on their website:

skills·based·vol·un·teer·ing /skilz/bāst/välənˈtir·ēng/ verb

Any time someone uses their abilities, talents, networks and resources to get a volunteering commitment completed.

This may or may not include pro bono volunteering, which takes a skill that is used every day in your job and applies it to work to address a complex social or environmental cause.

Points of Light suggests that skills-based volunteering comes in all shapes and sizes, including[2]:

• Individual volunteers, corporate paid/unpaid volunteers, loaned executives, interns
• Projects completed in a day; short, medium or longterm projects
• Activities performed during working hours or on individual time
• Planned in advance or spontaneous projects such as disaster response
• Application of all types of skills and talents from professional experience to hobbies
• Content from nonprofit infrastructure efficiency effort to direct “in the field” projects
• Local impact to national and international

Language is important. Let’s not use it carelessly and devalue volunteering, but with thought and clarity to shine a light on the contribution of all those who give their time to good causes.

---

1. Both Reach and Career Volunteer have helpful definitions of skilled volunteering on their websites.  ↩

2. Note that whilst Realized Worth do specialise in CSR and employee volunteering they do make clear that skills-based volunteering is not limited to this area of work.  ↩

Three lessons for volunteer programmes from customer service

Dan, a colleague of mine at the volunteer management software provider, Better Impact, recently recommended a new blog to follow called "Win The Customer". Initial impressions have been good so I've added it to my already lengthy list of blogs I follow.

Here I want to share one early highlight, a post entitled Three Retail Experience Trends That Will Change Your Service Approach.

I highly recommend reading this article before you go any further with my post as I want to highlight three parallels for leaders and manages of volunteers. So, off you go and I'll see you back here in a couple of minutes.

>>>>>

Right, I hope you liked that. Here's my thoughts on three applications of those lessons for us in our work with volunteers.

The Rise Of The Mobile Wallet

In retail the use of mobile devices as a method of payment seems to be growing. How is is or could this be manifesting in volunteer management?

Well, online searching for volunteer opportunities is nothing new. The soon to be re-launched Do-It is a teenager already and similar sites exist across the globe.

What is less common is online signup to volunteering. So many organisations, if they even have a good webpage dedicated to their volunteer programme, still ask people to download a form and submit it via email in order to apply to become a volunteer. 

The aforementioned Better Impact system enables volunteers to fill in a form online and apply directly into the organisations volunteer database. No more print and send. What’s more volunteers can do this, and manage there profile, sign up for shifts, log hours etc., via a smartphone.

Mobile use of the web is skyrocketing and the expectations we all have to manage our lives on to the go - from banking to online shopping - continue to grow too. Volunteering is not immune. Volunteers want to manage their volunteering online and not being able to do so could increasingly turn people off your organisation.

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned things like paying you volunteers’ expenses via mobile payment systems like PingIt or people applying to volunteer direct from Facebook with their applications populated automatically with the data Facebook holds on them (which is probably more than they even know about themselves!). 

Brick-And-Mortar Gets Interactive

The point the original article makes here is how can we enhance a shopper’s experience in store via mobile technology? For example, wan we give them free wifi and augmented reality apps so they can virtually try on that item of clothing and see all the different colour choices available, perhaps including those not available inshore?

In volunteer management terms I think there are two ways we can consider this trend, both relate to that period between the volunteer signing up and actually starting their role, a period that can be drawn out if intensive screening is involved.

First, how can we use online and mobile technology to provide or enhance the induction and any training we offer. Could volunteers take a virtual tour of the site via a YouTube video? Is there online learning material specific to their role that they could be working through? 

Second, if the vetting period takes a while, are there roles volunteers could be doing online that would be suitable for them until vetting is completed? What needs doing that could be packaged as a short-term, bite-sized opportunity that could lend itself to mobile? For example, monitoring the social media feeds of similar organisations to broaden the new volunteers awareness of the issues they will deal with (whilst at the same time perhaps gaining insights into ‘competitor’ behaviour for you).

Harnessing The Power Of Social Shopping

We’re all used to rating our shopping experiences online. Amazon has provided that facility for years and whether its a war and peace review or one of those “quick delivery” two-worders, chances are most of you reading this have rated something somewhere online.

I remember the idea being mooted a few years back that volunteers should be able to rate their experiences online on sites like Do-It. The reaction from Volunteer Managers and Volunteer Involving Organisations was less than enthusiastic. Perhaps because the Volunteer Involving Organisations involved are all too aware that what they offer volunteers is far from satisfactory and their ratings would reflect this?

Social media has opened this up regardless of whether a formal rating system exists. If someone has a bad time volunteering with you they can be straight onto their social network of choice ensuring their friends, family and colleagues don’t repeat their mistake.

Conversely, however, give volunteers a great time and they may be all to happy (perhaps with a little encouragement) to share their positivity about your agency with their networks.

Erik Qualman, in his book Socialnomics, refers to this as both ‘Word of mouth to world of mouth” and “Word of mouth on digital steroids”. In other words, social media is not to be feared so much as embraced as a key way to enhance the form of recruitment that consistently comes out as most effective around the world - word of mouth or personal recommendation.

You can do simple things like give your volunteers a hashtag to put on any posts they make about their volunteering, or give them some simple guidelines on what is appropriate for them to post on Instagram or Pinterest when they are volunteering?

So, there you have it, my three lessons for volunteer programmes from customer service, or at least adapted from the blog Dan shared with me.

What lessons can you share from customer service for volunteer programmes?

Specifically, what ideas do you have for how the customer service experience we give our volunteers can be enhanced via online and mobile technology?

Finally, if you’ve embraced online and mobile in this way, what did you do and what did you learn?

I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts.

What's in a word?

I've recently finished reading The Institute for Volunteer Research's (IVR) excellent new report on microvolunteering. Yes, that's right, something about microvolunteering that I am enthusiastic about.

As I have said in other blogs, microvolunteering is often portrayed as the knight in shining armour come to save the damsel in distress that is volunteering. It is claimed to be the magical solution that will engage people who are otherwise put off volunteering and start them down a long and happy road of lifelong service. It is evangelistically portrayed as the best thing ever to happen to volunteering without a single shred of meaningful evidence to back those assertions.

In their accessible and readable report, IVR take a more measured look at microvolunteering. They cut through the hype and hoopla to explore the realities of the concept, identifying opportunities and challenges for volunteer involving organisations and seeking out evidence to back up the claims the microvolunteering evangelists make. Its a great report and well worth a read.

We're also promised practical guidance on microvolunteering, drawn from a number of case study organisations IVR worked with in their research. Thsi is due late November and will add to the existing resources of organisations like Help From Home so that leaders and managers of volunteer can judge for themselves whether microvolunteering is for them and their volunteers.

One aspect that IVR touch on is the re-branding by organisations of some existing shorter term volunteering opportunities as microvolunteering. This is could be a consequence of organisations "sexing up" what they already offer by playing on new and trendy language.

One one level there is nothing wrong with giving something a new name to fit with in-vogue terminology. It is certainly nothing new, whether to volunteerism or any other walk of life. But I think we need to be really aware of the potential consequences.

Here are some examples.

A few years ago when the then government started developing more ideas about mandatory volunteering as part of citizenship or welfare requirements, the position many in the volunteering movement took was "so long as government don't call it volunteering it's ok". That was intended to protect the values of volunteering (and act of free will being key) from corruption by government. To an extent it worked but there have been two significant consequences.

First, government now feels they can get away with any such scheme so long as they don't call it volunteering. This has led to more of these initiatives which they defend accordingly. Except the public don't necessarily make the same distinctions we might. They see people working unpaid and being forced to do it and they make associations with volunteering anyway, in part because the media might still use this language even if ministers do not. So instead of facing up to a real debate, the volunteering movement could be accused of ducking the issue whilst the protection of volunteering they thought they were establishing hasn't been as effective as they thought.

Second, by saying "so long as you don't call it volunteering were not bothered", the volunteering movement has marginalised itself from having any relevant voice into policy circles that decide on such initiatives. After all, so long as they don't call it volunteering, why should ministers seek to engage with volunteering bodies over their ideas. As a result we get new schemes dreamt up with no real though given to the execution or resourcing of these by volunteer involving organisations.

Another example is around the more recent debates about internships.

In large part these debates have become higher profile because use of the word intern, especially in an unpaid context, has become more prevalent in recent years. From what I can see this seems to be for two reasons: individuals describe their volunteering as an internship because that term carries more weight with potential employers than the v-word does; organisations re-badge their volunteering opportunities as internships to attract more people as a result.

The consequence? First, by colluding with the idea that internship sounds more professional than volunteering we collude with the devaluing of volunteering, subordinating it to a lower class status below real work (i.e. paid) and internships. Second, we open up a can of worms such as that created by the recent debates on unpaid internships which - and let's not ignore this at all - risk fundamentally undermining the concepts of volunteering many of us hold so dear.

So back to microvolunteering.

As I said earlier, I really like the IVR report. There is much in there that I comment to anyone interested in the topic. But I want to add a real note of caution around the emerging trend for organisations to take what they alreday do and call it microvolunteering in order to attract people by using this sexy new word. Because if what organisation are doing is renaming something but still delivering the same unrewarding opportunity, doing little or nothing to change their actual practice in volunteer enagagement, then just as in the examples above, we risk real and potentially serious consequences. We risk deceiving people into volunteering with us, getting them all excited about our volunteer opportunities and then they get past the hype and sexy new words and find the same old things being done that never attracted them to volunteering before. That risks not only turning people of volunteering with your agency but with any orgaisation.

What's in a word? Potentially everything. Let's think really carefully about the words we use and the bandwagons we jump on. They may take us to places we don't want to go.

A new beginning for Do-It

Last week saw the announcement of the new home for Do-It, the English national volunteering database.

For over a decade Do-It has been the go to online resource for people to find out about volunteering opportunities in England. Every 45 seconds someone finds a volunteering opportunity through Do-It and 30% of them have never volunteered before. All this has been possible through the hard work of a dedicated team at YouthNet, the owners of Do-It, and their partners (mainly local Volunteer Centres).

However, in March 2013 YouthNet announced plans to find a new owner for Do-It and last week this was announced as a partnership led by the team behind ivo.org, the network for social change connecting people, companies and organisations that want to change their world.

You can read the full press release about last week's announcement on the ivo website.

I think this is an excellent piece of news for the sector.

For starters, ivo.org's CEO, Jamie Ward-Smith, has a strong track record in this arena. Not only was Jamie instrumental in the establishment of Do-It back in 2001 but he has a strong track record in working with the local volunteering infrastructure, initially as CEO at Volunteer Centre Kensington ad Chelsea but also as a senior civil servant in the Blair Labour government when the Russell Commission was conducting it's work.

These strong links should not be underestimated in their importance. Put simply, without the information supplied by local Volunteer Centre's Do-It would not have the volume or quality of  volunteering opportunities that it does. Key to Do-It's continued survival and essential to it's future development is the relationship it has with Volunteer Centres and Jamie is well placed to drive this forward.

The there is the track record Jamie and the ivo.org team have in driving social innovation in our sector. In just a few short years ivo.org has become a key resources for volunteers and leaders & managers of volunteer programmes. That has built on the work of the Red Foundation, an initiative Jamie ran prior to ivo.org and that I had the pleasure of working with on the Modernising Volunteering National Support Service whilst I was at Volunteering England.

Just as the link between Volunteer Centres and Do-It is important for the future, so it the creativity of the new partnership to innovate, especially around the development and integration of social media and microvolunteering. This is something I think ivo.org and their partners are uniquely placed to deliver.

So this is good news for all of us, whether volunteer or manager of volunteers. Good news doesn't come along very often these days. Let's take the opportunity to celebrate with the new team behind Do-It as we wish them all success for the future.

Thoughts on the Giving White Paper

Within the last couple of weeks the coalition government in England has published its Giving White Paper.  This follows on from the Giving Green Paper and associated essays which was launched just after Christmas 2010, and has been developed in light of the 400 responses government received to that earlier document.


What follows are some reflections on the key themes and issues arising from the Giving White Paper with a particular focus on the volunteering elements.  It is a bit of a lengthy post so here goes:


General observations

• Following on from the earlier Green Paper, it is good to see some recognition that the quality of the giving experience is a key factor in getting people to give. The flip side to this of course is that if giving isn't rewarding to the potential giver then they will be put off giving and government acknowledge this.
  
  In volunteering terms this means motivating and meaningful roles for volunteers, not just make work or the stuff nobody else wants to do.  Hopefully this will switch organisations on to the importance of designing good quality roles for volunteers and make funders (including government) more likely to resource volunteer management to deliver great experiences and not simply pursue a 'bums on seats' approach to endless recruitment that they seem to so often require.
  
  
• It is also good to see a document highlight the potential of Baby Boomers.  I think this generation has had little attention from the UK volunteering movement in recent years, perhaps a consequence of the disaster that was Experience Corps in the mid-noughties.  Yet Baby Boomers are going to be a huge potential pool of volunteers in future, but only if organisations adapt their volunteering offer to meet their needs.  Baby Boomers are very different from their parents whose volunteer efforts have shored up many an organisation that has been slow to develop their volunteering offer to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.  The USA, Canada and Australia are well ahead of us on this and we have some catching up to do.
  
  
• The commitment of £40m of funding for volunteering and social action over two years is good.  It won't make up for the funding that is being lost through the current cuts but used wisely it could help to steer people in the right direction for the future.  However, I do wonder if government will really be able to assess impact of these funds in the two year window they have given themselves before deciding how further funds will be invested.
  
  
• Unsurprisingly the issue of barriers to giving crop up again.  Yet all the barriers mentioned are external such as CRB checks and benefits rules (or perhaps more accurately the way they are interpreted by benefit advisers).  There is little or no focus on the barriers organisations themselves establish that get in the way of people giving, like inappropriate use of CRB checks, bureaucratic systems and processes, lack of investment in good volunteer leadership and management etc..  Maybe that's because government are focusing on things they think they can change.  Yet this could be an area that government could help drive change in, as they are doing with other aspects of the White Paper.
  
  
• I was intrigued by the short section on "Giving CVs".  These essentially seem to be a means for volunteers to have people rate their efforts, almost like eBay feedback.  The suggestion is that such systems could help with volunteer screening, reducing the need for things like references.  There isn't a lot of information on this in the document so I reserve judgement for now but I do see some big problems with this and suspect it will be met with great scepticism by many volunteer managers, especially in our risk averse culture.
  
  
• I like the Community First model highlighted through the example from Seattle.  The essence of this is establishing systems of support that don't just focus on funding but leverage a range of resources to enable organisations to fulfil their goals.  I am especially attracted to this because of the potential for volunteering in such models and because I am on record as suggesting leaders in the voluntary and community sector are too money oriented and need to change to meet the challenges of the new financially restricted reality we live in.
  
  
• It is encouraging to read of the proposed Giving Summit and I look forward to more details.

Volunteer leadership & management

• It is very encouraging to see government acknowledge the value and importance of volunteer management as a key element to successfully increasing the number of volunteers and impact of volunteering.  This continues a trend that really started in policy terms as a consequence of the Commission of the Future of Volunteering who reported in early 2008.
  
  Hopefully this emphasis will lead to further funding for volunteer leadership and management from government and encouragement for other funders to invest in this critical area of organisation capacity.
  
  
• On a couple of occasions the White Paper talks about investing in the training and development of voluntary volunteer managers.  This is good, more volunteers should be involved in the management of volunteer programmes.  But where is the emphasis on paid volunteer managers?  Are they to get nothing?
  
  
• There are also a couple of occasions where the document talks about retired civil servants being trained up as volunteer managers.  Interesting.  Why?  What leads government to think civil servants are going to make good volunteer managers?  I'm sure some will but the idea as presented lacks any substance and thus credibility.
  
• In respect of these last two points it is worth reading a recent blog from Jayne Cravens and the June Hot Topic from Energize.  Both contain observations on the problem in the USA of increased use of AmeriCorps volunteers a voluntary volunteer managers and the need to do this alongside 'professional' volunteer management rather than instead of it.
  
  
• There is a section in the White Paper encouraging the development and promotion of more 'self managed' volunteer opportunities.  This seems to suggest that a solution to some of the problems facing volunteers is giving people the power to select what they do and when they do it.  Government advocates concepts like Silvers of Time to aid this.
  
  On one level I totally agree.  Volunteers need to have more say in what they do and when it is done.  Leaders of volunteer need to adapt to this and embrace it, striking a balance between the needs of the volunteer, the organisation and the client.  Yet I also have problems with that government proposes.
  
  First of all such self-managed volunteering is not new.  Young people's projects have been doing it for ages, in fact they have been even more self-managed as often the young people have developed the projects themselves, not just chosen when to volunteer for them.  This was a major theme of the Russell Commission and subsequently of the work of v.
  
  What is perhaps new is facilitating volunteers to have more control over when they give via technology.  Even that isn't that new because people like New York Cares have been doing it for years and existing volunteer management software like Volunteer Squared provides a means for self-managed volunteering.
  My second concern is that ideas like Slivers only help people take control of their volunteering if there are opportunities available in organisations that have embraced the idea of self-managed volunteering.  A new website or tech tool like Slivers provides an interface but it isn't a short cut to good volunteer management and opportunity development.

Infrastructure

• I like the language used of "Providing better support for those offering and managing opportunities to give".  This is far more engaging than abstract concepts such as infrastructure, especially when most people think of bridges, roads, railways etc. when they hear that word.
  
  My only hesitation with the phrase is that it is very organisationally focused.  Volunteering infrastructure has historically supported Volunteer Involving Organisations and volunteers.  This phrase, despite its strengths, omits the volunteer element which is essential for that is a key strength of bodies like Volunteer Centres whose person centred approach gets more people from disadvantaged groups volunteering than almost any other form of volunteer recruitment.
  
  
• Which leads me to my next point and it is a concern.  Aside from the funding available for infrastructure now being £30m not the £42m stated in the Green Paper, it is also now aimed at all infrastructure not just volunteering infrastructure.  This means Councils for Voluntary Service (CVS) can access it not just bodies like Volunteer Centres (VC).  There is also a stated desire to see better integration locally, which to me suggests the agenda is to driver mergers between local infrastructure bodies.
  I spent six years working with local infrastructure bodies and have come across many good and bad CVS and VCs.  I am not therefore opposed to greater collaboration and or merger in principle.  However, evidence from Volunteering England's Annual Return of Volunteer Centres consistently shows that independent VCs are better funded, deliver a wider range of services and more consistently deliver on their six core functions than VCs who are part of a CVS.
  
  Furthermore, VCs exist to serve volunteering not just the voluntary sector.  That means they should (and many do) work with public and private sector bodies too.  CVS don't generally do this, focusing their development work on a predominantly or exclusively voluntary sector audience.  
  
  And experience shows that CVS can be all to quick to cut VC funding when times get tough.
  
  So I hope the changes between the Green and White Papers don't result in ill thought through mergers because 'government say so' or because funding is tight so it becomes the only course of action.  Many in both CVS and VC network will oppose this, as will other local infrastructure providers.  This agenda has suffered from some of the worst sector politicking I've ever seen in the past and I hope that stops.  Non-partisan leadership by the likes of NAVCA and Volunteering England is needed to ensure we end up with a fit-for-purpose local infrastructure, not just one that is cost-effective. 
  
• I am pleased to see government funding YouthNet to further develop and opening up the data on the Do-It national volunteering database.   Whilst I do have reservations about the wisdom of putting all our volunteering eggs in one online database basket, Do-It does have a good track record and a great team behind it.  
  
  Some Volunteer Centres will baulk at the idea though and this needs careful management.  VCs provide the majority of opportunities on Do-It but mistakenly think that these opportunities are theirs.  They aren't.  They belong to the organisations who need the volunteers and they don't care where they get their volunteers so long as they get them.
  Where the VCs have a point is that if they are doing all the hard work getting the opportunities onto Do-It, is becomes rather galling if someone else fills that vacancy for a volunteer, especially when many VCs are funded to place volunteers.  So it is even more worrying to see that government want Do-It to open their books to profit making bodies like Slivers of Time.  I have much more sympathy with VCs if their hard work is going to help people make money whilst they suffer more and more cuts and under-investment.
  
  Volunteering England, YouthNet and government have got their work cut out on this one.

Technology and volunteering

• As with the Green Paper, government seems to have bought the argument that a big barrier to volunteering is lack of spare time and so expresses interest in concepts like  microvolunteering.  I have recently blogged some of my concerns on this so won't repeat them here.
  
  To their credit, however, government do seem to get that a key way to get more people to give it to given them role models.  What has potential here is not celebrities or ministers volunteering but real people, people like you and me.  I strongly believe that if someone who claims they don't have the time to volunteer can see someone like them finding the time to give time and be helped to find a great opportunity to give themselves then that will be more powerful than a new website or gadget.
  
• One of the worrying things about the pursuit of technological solutions is that it assume people have the tech to access all these new ways to access volunteering.  Not everyone owns an iPhone or iPad, which seems to be the most common app platform for these things.  The social media professionals who develop these things may well have all the latest tech but not everybody does.  What about the rest of us?  And what about all those who can't afford £35-£40 a month to have the latest mobile communications gadget?
  
  Don't get me wrong, I love technology but the danger is that a constant focus on whizzy new tech solutions and the resulting shift of the focus in volunteering terms onto these new ideas could create more barriers than it removes.
  
• On a few occasions the White Paper talks of new technology and social media giving people new opportunities to give or creating attractive placements.  This is very worrying because by and large they don't.  Technology, websites and social media help people find out about and engage in opportunities to give their time but they rarely create the opportunities.  To buy into the argument that they do suggests that anyone can build a website or app and people will have a rewarding giving experience.
  As Oxfam said in response to the Green Paper which said "...there is a danger that seeking technological solutions [to booting volunteering] may lead to a focus on mechanisms rather than the quality of the volunteering opportunity.  The first priority should be to ensure that meaningful opportunities are a priority."  
  
  I worry that Oxfam's excellent point hasn't been truly grasped by government yet and hope it will be, lest they invest £millions in new ideas that look sexy but deliver little.

So there you go, for what they are worth those are my initial thoughts and observations on the Giving White paper.  Government rightly acknowledges that this is the start of a process and discussion about how we realise a real change in giving in the UK.  So I hope my thoughts add to this in some small way and I look forward to hearing your ideas and responses via the comments section below.

See you at the Giving Summit. 

Microvolunteering

If you are a reader of blogs, articles, tweets and a variety of other material on volunteerism then the concept of microvolunteering cannot have escaped your notice in recent months.

In a nutshell, the idea is that you can take part in volunteering through activities that require a very small commitment of your time.  They are commonly available online (although offline microvolunteering does take place and has done so for years), especially via mobile phone apps and other technological and/or social networking means. 

I won't go into more detail here about what microvolunteering is because plenty of others have covered the topic before.  For example, Help From Home have produced a very good free download introducing the concept and have also made freely available a guide to setting up a microvolunteering project.  Sam Sparrow, the excellent head of the volunteer unit at Catch 22, has also written on the subject to in her blog about modernising volunteering the micro way.

Anyone who has heard me speak on the microvolunteering concept will know what whilst I think the idea has potential, I am also sceptical about its two most commonly stated benefits:

• That microvolunteering allows people who don't volunteer because they don't have the time to give to engage in ways that fit their lives 

• That those who engage in microvolunteering will likely catch the volunteering and become more regular volunteers in future.

For me there are three reasons for my scepticism on microvolunteering.

Time poverty - real or perceived?

Firstly, we seem to be buying into the belief that people don't volunteer because they don't have the time.  In my experience, people don't volunteer because they think they don't have the time.  That's an important distinction.

If they really don't have the time then maybe microvolunteering is a solution.  

But if they really don't get involved because they think they'll be asked for more than they are prepared to give then there is a different and potentially more powerful approach we can take. 

One that changes how we plan for volunteer engagement so we don't just offer long term, open-ended time intensive opportunities.  

One that seeks to give them positive role models, to show how people just like them (not celebrities or politicians but real working people who have to balance jobs, family etc.) manage to give just some of their time to good causes.

NCVO recently published "Participation: Trends, Facts and Figures" and the following lines from a section on political engagement struck me as relevant to this issue of microvolunteering:

"The most common reasons for not participating in the 2010 general election were...a 'lack of time' or 'being too busy'.  So, whilst the internet gives us greater access to democracy than ever before, without building knowledge and fostering interest it's unlikely to make a dramatic difference."

In other words, as more and more online tools have been developed to help people engage with politics, there is still a problem of people saying they were too busy to vote.  

The cautionary parallel for microvolunteering is that if we don't tackle the root causes of people's lack of engagement with volunteering - for example, the reasons for their perceptions of time poverty in regard to volunteering - then we can develop all the whizzy tech tools we want but we won't ultimately solve the problem.

Micro becomes macro?

Secondly, nobody can yet point to any evidence that people who do microvolunteering go on to macrovolunteering, that is volunteering that would fit with most people's understanding of giving time on a more regular and/or time intensive basis.

Further on in the NCVO paper on participation there is a section on e-campaigning.  I quote:

"People primarily participate through digital channels because it is fast, easy and at their convenience.  While it can be used for deepening engagement, most organisations aren't yet putting effort into achieving this."

If this isn't happening in campaigning, an area of civil society activity that gets lots of attention and support, then I am pretty confident that it isn't happening in volunteering, the Cinderella of the sector.  That isn't to say that it won't happen, that someone won't prove that microvolunteering leads to macrovolunteering.  I hope they do.  But it does suggest that right now that evidence isn't there.

Impact - is there any?

The parallels with other forms of participation courtesy of the NCVO report continue, again via talk of e-campaigning where I was struck by this line:

"For most supporters, e-campaigning makes supporting what they believe easier and more convenient.  This ultimately gets more participation in the campaign.  What it doesn't do is guarantee and impact: this still relies on good research, strategy and implementation".

To read a lot of the writing on microvolunteering, you'd be forgiven for thinking it is some kind of magic bullet to engaging time poor people in your cause.

However, just as there is a dearth of evidence to demonstrate the alleged micro-to-macro link, so there is also a huge gap in our knowledge about whether microvolunteering actually makes any meaningful difference. 

Even if it does get more people into volunteering, microvolunteering doesn’t yet appear to guarantee that what they do has any positive impact at all.

I am not alone

And I am not alone in my scepticism about microvolunteering. 

Jayne Cravens, perhaps the world's leading authority on the use of technology in volunteerism, recently wrote two excellent blog posts about how microvolunteering is virtual volunteering and reflecting on another person's take on microvolunteering following the publication of Leonie Shanks' excellent sceptical blog, microvolunteering: fast food for the Big Society.

Final thoughts

I hope by now you have realised that I think the case for microvolunteering has been overstated and that it is seemingly becoming accepted as the next big thing without any evidence existing to show microvolunteering deserves such attention.  

I look forward to being proved wrong, I really do.

I hope someone can show that it does effectively tackle real or perceived time poverty, that it does help people catch the volunteering bug and up their commitment accordingly and that given the profile it has microvolunteering really does make a real difference to good causes.

Until then I shall sceptical about (but not anti) microvolunteering.


NB - Since my original post there has been a discussion about my thoughts on i-volunteer.  Also, Ben Rigby over at Sparked.com has published his own response.  As Ben says, "It’s really exciting to hear so many people thinking through the problem areas and possibilities of this dynamic new field" and I'm proud to be playing a part in that.

Blogging, Tweeting and LinkingIn

Anyone who has visited our website will hopefully know that we’re trying to embrace the social media revolution at Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd.  To date we have this blog, a Twitter account, a LinkedIn page and YouTube channel.  However, I am acutely aware that despite all the benefits and pleasures they bring, all these new social media toys can be an enormous time sucker, distracting people away from doing real work and making a real difference.

So, why are we using them?

I want to focus on three aspects of our social media presence – the blog, LinkedIn and Twitter.  I’m going to save YouTube for another day, simply because it is the area we have put least effort into so far (as you’ll see from the less than perfect introductory video I have uploaded to the channel!).

Blog

One of my goals having started the business is to write more.  Writing is something I have been encouraged and inspired to do for many years by peers in the volunteering movement.  Volunteerism leader Susan Ellis in particular has been encouraging me to write for many years.  Why?  As she wrote thirteen years ago:

“My reputation for nagging people to WRITE about what they do is probably unparalleled. But too many of us are so busy ‘doing’ that we won't make time for reflection, new learning, and sharing with others. True professionals keep themselves informed. And career ladders are built by gaining recognition through published articles.”

Its not that I haven’t written, I have – particularly for www.e-volunteerism.com where I am part of the editorial board – but I haven’t given it the time or focus I would like.   With Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd that’s changing, not least because I am working on two writing projects to bring excellent existing volunteer management books into UK versions for the domestic market.

This blog is a key part of my writing plans.  My goal is to produce at least two posts a month.  I’m also planning to guest blog for Martin Cowling’s The Cowling Report, Andy Fryar’s OzVPM site, DJ Cronin (whose blog is currently up for an award) and Susan Ellis’ Energize Hot Topics.

So far the blog posts I’ve written have focused on getting the business up an running.  But I am going to start moving on to talk about issues affecting volunteering and the voluntary and community sector, mostly here in the UK but also overseas as well. 

This is something I’m incredibly passionate about.  In the past my voice has sometimes been constrained by working for organisations where for me to speak my mind might not have been the most helpful course of action.  Although not quite this badly!

Nobody was censoring me but it just wouldn’t have been wise for me to speak out as it would have potentially damaged my employer and, in some cases, the wider volunteerism field. 

Not so anymore.  I don’t think there are enough people writing and speaking out about volunteering issues in the UK.  I want to add my voice to that small chorus in the hope that I can make a contribution to helping the volunteer movement grow, develop and rise to the challenges and opportunities it faces.

So look out for posts in the future on topics like microvolunteering, online volunteering brokerage, developing volunteer opportunities, customer service for volunteer programmes, volunteering infrastructure, job substitution, government policy on volunteering and wider topics for the voluntary & community sector like mergers and the Big Society.

Twitter

I have two Twitter accounts.  One is a personal one which I mainly use to keep up with friends and to keep informed on the latest news about the various different kinds of motorsport that I love and follow.  The work account I use for the following key reasons:

• To keep people who are interested in what I do informed of what I am doing (for example I will promote this blog post via Twitter)
  
• To share information I come across that I think has particular relevance to people working in the fields I engage with
  
• As a key source of information and news for me on what’s going on in the environment the business operates in
  
• To make new contacts and expand my networks

For those of you sceptical about the value of Twitter, here’s one example of how it has helped me. 

Two weeks ago I asked a question to my network on LinkedIn as I was trying to source recommendations for providers of professional indemnity insurance for consultants.  As my Twitter and LinkedIn accounts are connected a firm called PolicyBee saw my question and got in touch.  To cut a long story short I went with them for my insurance, securing better cover for a lower price.

LinkedIn

You will have noticed that I haven’t mentioned Facebook in this post.  That’s because I’m steering clear of Facebook for the business, for now at least.  Partly because I want to keep Facebook for me personally but largely because I think I’m better off getting involved in a social network aimed more at a professional audience, namely LinkedIn.

For me, the advantages of LinkedIn are that I can maintain a profile for the business in the same site as I have a version of my well established email network group for volunteer managers, UKVPMs, and my own personal profile which serves as an online CV.  Add to that the link between Twitter and LinkedIn that I mentioned earlier makes me believe this is a more powerful business social networking tool than any of the others.

Let me share a practical example.  I’ve recently been working on key result areas, objectives and milestones for the business.  Part of that work involved exploring ways I could effectively and easily measure how happy clients are with what I do.  So, one quick question posted on LinkedIn and just a few minutes later I have two examples of online surveys that people in my network use with their clients.

Conclusion

As I said at the start of this post, I am all too aware that social media can become a time-sucker getting in the way of productivity.  That’s why it is important to have a clear sense of why you want to use social media and what you want to achieve from it.  This is something to be particularly careful of in the volunteering arena as we are increasingly encouraged to embrace without question the potential of social media to revolutionise volunteering, in the face of little evidence that trendy concepts like microvolunteering make any meaningful difference to society (a topic to which I will return in future but for now read the ever excellent Jayne Cravens’ recent thoughts on the concept).

So, as I build the marketing strategy for Rob Jackson Consulting Ltd over coming weeks, I will be developing and refining key objectives for our use of these new media and monitoring whether it really helps with our work or gets in the way. 

I’ll let you know how I get on.